Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Bannon changes tune on Musk, says he's 'impressed' [View all]OKIsItJustMe
(21,016 posts)33. It doesn't need to have been declared an insurrection. Nor does he even have to have taken par in it.
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/11345/27_27YaleLJ331_1917_1918_.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
WHAT IS GIVING AID AND COMFORT
TO THE ENEMY?
CHARLES WARREN
Washington, D. C.
In Young v. United States it was held that the words "aid or comfort to the rebellion" as used in the Captured and Abandoned Property Act of March 12, 1863, in the Civil War, were used in the same sense as in the Constitution defining treason--"that is to say, in their hostile sense"; and in that case, where a man contracted with the government of the State of North Carolina to provide warlike supplies and to aid in running cotton out through the blockade, and performed acts carrying out his contract, it was held that the acts were clearly treasonable.
TO THE ENEMY?
CHARLES WARREN
Washington, D. C.
In Young v. United States it was held that the words "aid or comfort to the rebellion" as used in the Captured and Abandoned Property Act of March 12, 1863, in the Civil War, were used in the same sense as in the Constitution defining treason--"that is to say, in their hostile sense"; and in that case, where a man contracted with the government of the State of North Carolina to provide warlike supplies and to aid in running cotton out through the blockade, and performed acts carrying out his contract, it was held that the acts were clearly treasonable.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I wish DU would ban anything of bannon, he's a felon, who ripped off people, went to jail, and did his time, and will go
SWBTATTReg
Nov 28
#2
I understand but it's helpful to know even Bannon thinks he moved the race greatly,
mahina
Nov 28
#4
I mean, Trump is also a felon, and it would be completely impossible to ban all mention of him. Especially now.
Karasu
Nov 29
#22
boy, wouldn't it be great if congress bothered taking a vote on this. they won't...but it would be great if they did. nt
orleans
Nov 29
#16
"The Court noted, however, that states retain concurrent authority to enforce Section 3 with respect to state offices"
Polybius
Nov 29
#31
It doesn't need to have been declared an insurrection. Nor does he even have to have taken par in it.
OKIsItJustMe
Nov 29
#33