michael@xanadu.com (Michael McClary) (01/13/90)
In article <30764@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> pierce@cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes: > >[] I was under the strong impression, however, that the legislators >questioning Ollie North thought that that aspect of his work [planning >to suspend the Constitution] was legal, because they postponed >discussion of it for a private session. Perhaps they didn't want to get distracted from the main point, which was seeing of they could hang Contragate on Reagan.
gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) (01/17/90)
In article <7145@tank.uchicago.edu> bob@delphi.UUCP (Robert S. Lewis, Jr.) writes: > . . . The President swears an oath of >office prescribed in the Constitution: "I do solemly swear (or affirm) >that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the >United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect >and defend the Constitution of the United States." Nothing about >suspending the document he swears to preserve, protect, and defend. This brings up something we were talking about here a while back. We were talking about what constitutes treason, and came to the conclusion that it is only used by those in power to kill members of the opposition, even though the dictionary and common sense would define it differently. Can anyone make the case that making plans to suspend the constitution is *not* treason? If citizens like you and I made such plans, they would call it plotting to overthrow the government, and you can bet we'd be charged with treason. Why is it different when North, Reagon, Bush, and all their fellow conspirators? Gerry Gleason