Does the honorable and former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich need help understanding criminal vs. treason?

[herald]

Ok, I am re-posting this so the neo-cons don't get their feelings hurt when I say Newty Tooty, this way they are forced to actually think and question Mr. Gingrich's stance on treason

The Constitution says ( concerning treason):

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Loss of national citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:

Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically, this is not loss of citizenship but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a United States citizen.
Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions that demonstrate desire to give up national citizenship

Section 3 in the 14th amendment prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion or treason. However, a two-thirds vote by each House of the Congress can override this limitation. In 1898, the Congress enacted a general removal of Section 3's limitation.

In 1975, Robert E. Lee's citizenship was restored by a joint congressional resolution, retroactive to June 13, 1865. In 1978, pursuant to Section 3, the Congress posthumously removed the service ban from Jefferson Davis.

In short, even people who commit treason still have the basic rights of a citizen in this country and can only be found guilty of treason in a court of law

[collyer]

Ok, I am re-posting this so the neo-cons don't get their feelings hurt when I say Newty Tooty, this way they are forced to actually think and question Mr. Gingrich's stance on treason

The Constitution says ( concerning treason):

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Loss of national citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:

Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically, this is not loss of citizenship but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a United States citizen.
Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions that demonstrate desire to give up national citizenship

Section 3 in the 14th amendment prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion or treason. However, a two-thirds vote by each House of the Congress can override this limitation. In 1898, the Congress enacted a general removal of Section 3's limitation.

In 1975, Robert E. Lee's citizenship was restored by a joint congressional resolution, retroactive to June 13, 1865. In 1978, pursuant to Section 3, the Congress posthumously removed the service ban from Jefferson Davis.

In short, even people who commit treason still have the basic rights of a citizen in this country and can only be found guilty of treason in a court of law

yes. I'm with Ron Paul in the argument about the patsy act.

[avikar76]

How about you get a clue before you accuse others falsely.
Oh right, your a liberal, facts are like poison to you.

[donough]

Newt Gingrich understands perfectly. Too bad President Obama doesn't.

[ruelle]

Gingrich was pointing out behavior that he considered treason. He may have even gone as far as accusing some of treason. He didn't convict anyone nor demand that heads roll. Literal Last Name! Are you just grasping for anything to discredit an Obama opponent? If you thought you reeled in a big one and it turns out to be a tire, throw it back its not a tire fish its just a tire.

[plys]

Gingrich was pointing out behavior that he considered treason. He may have even gone as far as accusing some of treason. He didn't convict anyone nor demand that heads roll. Literal Last Name! Are you just grasping for anything to discredit an Obama opponent? If you thought you reeled in a big one and it turns out to be a tire, throw it back its not a tire fish its just a tire.

This man has gone way past help. The Right should be saddened by the choices they have. Not one of them can stay up for the fight. Romney cant get passed 22% Cain has nosedived ,Perry never gets it right. Huntsman was likable till he jumped on the bandwagon screaming lies about Obama to make the Tea Party grade. Bachman is still nuts and Santorum well....Its no wonder Newt is leading in the polls.But today all that will change. His ice cream is melting and his slip is showing.