Share Tweet Pocket Add to Bookmarks
You're reading: Alexei Bayer: Trump’s treasonous candidacy

Since then, Trump became a Republican nominee and the affinity
between him and Putin has been shown to be a direct connection, not just a mere
similarity. His people purged the Republican platform of its rather important
and widely supported plank, calling for supplying Ukraine with weapons to
combat separatists and defend itself against Russian aggression. It was,
incidentally, the only point of the platform they cared about and had any
interest in changing.

Trump then talked about reneging on America’s treaty obligation
to come to the defense of its NATO
allies – meaning Eastern European and ex-Soviet member-states – if Russia
attacked or tried to destabilize them. More recently, it has been revealed that
Russian hackers were almost certainly behind the theft of the Democratic
National Committee’s emails, which were made public via Wikileaks on the eve of
the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

Exclusive article

Sign up or subscribe to view more articles.
Try Kyiv Post for just 99¢ for the first month!
See All Plans
$5.95
Monthly plan
Get unlimited article access, anytime, anywhere.

Subscribe
$60
Yearly plan
Access all the exclusive content on KyivPost.com and the complete online archive.
Subscribe
Advertisement

Add comment

Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment.

Trump is foremost looking after number 1!!!! Himself!, he has tried a number of times to build hotels and casinos in Russia and not been successful, perhaps he sees the President's position as a means to secure support from Putin in Trumps business venture in Russia!!!

So Basically Trump considers Reset 2.0 although the first one was a spectacular failure.

Well done, Donnie.

Indeed, Hillary should refuse debating with Trump unless he discloses his tax returns. The suggestion that hackers can disclose those returns are even more compelling. Should Trump claim that hacked returns are false his refusal to reveal these himself becomes even more self incriminating.

If a great number of other inanities Bayer has spilled on these pages weren't enough, this has now cinched it up: "the Southern secession was a treasonous and subversive act", not to mention the rest of the related speculations. Such an act of putting one's foot in one's mouth merely supports the notion that being a specialist (in this case, in financial markets) in one field doesn't mean expertise elsewhere (in this case, American history). Venturing incongruous musings publicly on a subject without having first gotten sufficient immersion into it is unwise at best and asinine at worst. I strongly suspect that at the moment we're dealing with the latter.

I'm not sure what you mean, Oknemfrod. Depending on which side you were on, you were either a traitor or a patriot if you chose to secede from the union. Alexei has taken the Union side. Personally, I think the South had a constitutional right to secede (as confirmed by the Union's failure to try Jefferson Davis for treason).. Alexei is not a lawyer, so he is not expressing a legal conclusion - merely the sentiment held by most of the Union of that day and probably today.

Where does the "foot in mouth" fit?

The "Union's failure to try Jefferson Davis for treason" part is wrong. They did begin to try him, but President Johnson pardoned all who fought for the Confederacy on Christmas Day 1868. Also, his legal team didn't claim that he was innocent of treason, their claim was that he was already punished by the 14th Amendment, which was double jeopardy.

Actually, he was indicted for treason but the charges were dropped because the Constitution had no such concept as a "US citizen". A person could only be a citizen of his state, not of the U.S. Hence, since JD was not a citizen of the U.S. he could not be tried for treason. Before the case could proceed Pres Andrew Johnson pardoned everyone who fought for the Confederacy, and JD was now immune from prosecution

But, putting aside all the legal nuances, the fact is that the U.S. prosecutors and US officials were relieved to learn that Johnson had issued the pardon because they were afraid that Davis would prove that the South’s secession had been legal.

Keep in mind, Allie, that the Constitution created a voluntary union of sovereign states with very limited and only essential powers given to the Federal government. The greater part of governance was in the State and loyalty was given to the state. That is the reason why Robert E. Lee, though disapproving of slavery and though offered the command of all Union forces, declined. He saw himself firstly as a citizen of Virginia and that was his primary loyalty.

Although the Constitution did not provide for peaceful exit from "the Union" by the sovereign states, that was certainly a natural conclusion that would have been drawn by any citizen of any of the States. Referendums were held in the various states - such as was possible under those circumstances - and the states voted overwhelmingly for opting out. It is hard to find "treason" when loyalty and allegiance or even citizenship is not accorded to the entity prosecuting "treason".

As to paragraph 1. Absolutely incorrect. "Constitution had no such concept as a "US citizen". A person could only be a citizen of his state, not of the U.S". That is untrue. The Constitution did not DEFINE a citizen., and that is largely because US citizenship was derived from English Common Law and the concept of jus soli . Article I of the Constitution "To serve as a member of the House of Representatives, one must have been a citizen of the United States for seven years." or the naturalized citizen requirement for Presidents.

Before the Civil War, SCOTUS released the Dred Scott decision forbidding citizenship for African Americans. It states that "The Court recognized state citizenship as the source of federal citizenship, but insisted that the state had no further power to confer federal citizenship on persons by making them state citizens." Of course, the Dred Scott decision was considered wrong and spawned the 14th Amendment. You cannot deny AA's citizenship if it doesn't exist. The Constitution also gave Congress the authority to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization,”

Again, mistaken. JD's case was sent to scotus because the judges couldn't agree if the 14th Amendment Section 3 imposed a "punishment" for former Confederate soldiers or"disqualification". The former would constitute double jeopardy, the latter wouldn't. Before scotus could take up the case Johnson issued the pardon. It had nothing to do with whether secession was legal. Remember, even JD's own lawyers didn't argue that. There were other concerns too, Virginia hadn't set back up their court system, Virginia jurors would be too sympathetic to JD, a conviction might get the south fighting again, and many northerners either wanted to hang him in public or show mercy. Most just wanted it over with and to move on.

Those who claim arguments similar to yours claim that Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase thought secession was legal. Chase was the justice who thought JD faced double jeopardy since 14A part 3 stated former Confederate soldiers could not hold elected office (which he considered punishment for treason, which is why a trial was considered double jeopardy). Justice Chase addressed the constitutionality of unilateral secession a few months later when he authored the Supreme Court’s opinion in Texas v. White. “The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.”

I agree that the issue of treason was ultimately avoided by dismissing the case on grounds of "double jeopardy", but that was largely based on the court's (including Justice Chase) and the government's reluctance to address the issue of treason. That, however, is not the point. It was not until the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution - AFTER the civil war and during the trial - that the Constitution placed national citizenship before state citizenship. This issue of citizenship had been introduced in the proceedings but the case was dismissed on other grounds. There was great concern that if the government lost its case of treason against Jefferson Davis, it would pose grave damage to the legality of the war between the states and Northern insistence on the indissolubility of the Union.

And, yes, Supreme Court Justice Chase did determine that the Constitution provided for an "indestructible" Union but he had been a strong "unionist" all along and the enormous destruction of the war and the sacrifices of both sides would have made any other decision by the victor impossible. I suspect - if the South had succeeded - its dissenting interpretation would have been equally well grounded in the Constitution as well 🙂

Victori spolia.

There's not one side or the other one can take on whether 2+2=4. Here, you've said it: The South had a constitutional right to secede. It's not your personal opinion, but an absolutely, positively undisputed fact. Hence, what Lincoln did in response was a blatant violation of the Constitution he had sworn to protect and defend, and that, bon ami, is what's called a "treasonous and subversive act". If Bayer doesn't know that much and yet avers to the contrary on a public forum according to his baseless personal sentiment, he hurts his credibility as an author able to render a valid opinion. That's where the "foot in the mouth" fits.

James Canchela

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it allow for secession though on April 15, 1869 Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase conceded that secession was possible through revolution or consent of all the states, but there is no independent right of secession. One might read the Gettysburg Address for an explanation for the actions the Union took to preserve the country.

The Constitution is not a document that allows anything; it's one that prohibits. To that effect, the 10th states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution to the States; you derive the rest.
p.s. You don't think I haven't read the Gettysburg Address, do you?

You're ignoring:
Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….”

It might have bolstered their case had the southern states not called themselves the confederates.

Also, your idea that the right of secession is undisputed is a lie. Not only did scotus disagree with you in Texas v. White, Justice Scalia, as far right a justice as there is, disagrees.

Nope, ain't ignoring it; rather, you're misapplying it, for it applies only to the States still within the union, not ones that have left it.

No "lie". Yes, it's been disputed ad nauseam *now*. But if you had read more carefully, you'd have detected that I was writing about the right of the Southern States to secede as of their secession in 1860, at which time denying the right of a state to secede was practically inconceivable. It was 9 years before Texas v. White (and 76 years before Scalia was even born).

p.s. Do you believe that the Declaration of Independence is still a valid document? Maybe not, but if you do, explain how prohibiting the states to leave the union is compatible with the Declaration's assertion that they are "free and independent States" - and how such a prohibition fails to render both "free" and "independent" meaningless.

The Declaration of Independence is not declaring that the states are "free" from the Federal government nor "independent" of the federal government. They are declaring that they are free and independent from the King.
" a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.....-The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

The objections listed in the DOI reference directly the King and have nothing to do with a federal government.

HE has refused...
HE has forbidden....
HE has called together.....

In fact, what does the closing of the DOI say?

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Mutually pledging to each other our lives, etc. sounds a bit like a group of individuals who consider their union perpetual.

Tis' all is good and well and right, except for your first sentence:

>The Declaration of Independence is not declaring that the states are "free" from the Federal government nor "independent" of the federal government.<

And this is because at the time of the signing, the Federal government not only did not exist, it hadn't been even conceived, and would't be formed for another 13 years till 1789. Would you now revisit your assertion and recheck it for simple formal logic? Thank you.

p.s. "Free" and "independent" means free and independent.

James Canchela

The South had no Constitutional right of secession for the Constitution is actually silent on the subject of Secession. It became not a litigation of the judiciary but a orderly refusal of federal law. It became not a political question nor a judicial one but a military one.
The Supreme Court stated in 1869 stated that the union between any states and other states was complete, perpetual, indissoluble. "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."
No I do not derive the rest on my own. Every state has an agreement with all the other states and not the union per say.

Is secession legal?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theamericanconserva...

>The South had no Constitutional right of secession for the Constitution is actually silent on the subject of Secession.<

Since the Constitution is silent on the subject of the secession, the 10th Amendment renders it legal. For secession to be illegal, the Constitution must have an explicit clause to prohibit it to the States. It does not. Period, end of story, no matter how you slice it or dice it, or what the Supreme Court stated when. What the Supreme Court says is not the law of the land; the Constitution is. It was written for the people, not the Supreme Court; and the fact that the latter has illegally usurped the right to solely interpret it changes nothing.

James Canchela

Quoting from Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
The Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes colloquially known as "SCOTUS"[1]) is the highest federal court of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution in 1789, it has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction.

Wikipedia? Ha. Find me any clause in the Constitution saying that SCOTUS defines what's constitutional and what's not. All the Article III says is:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Find me *anything* in this article remotely coherent with what whoever wrote that Wiki rubbish purports it to be.

James Canchela

US State Courts
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about" rel="nofollow">http://www.uscourts.gov/about-...
Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices. It also established the lower federal court system.

All true, but it still doesn't say anywhere that SCOTUS shall be the final judge on the constitutionality of any issue.

My personal take on the Constitution is this: It is evident from its plain, concise phrasing that the document was intended, not to serve as a basis for hairsplitting by legal minds, but principally for the use by the people as the final authority on what is lawful and what is not. If one's rights are being violated based on a law contradicting the Constitution, the latter should be sufficient for the violator to admit that the law is null and void and hence to cease and desist.

Though this direct link between the citizens and the Constitution governing their daily affairs has been, unfortunately, all but washed out, many citizens still do assert their rights based directly on the Constitution and in fact often make the violators bugger off right there and then, particularly when they are unlawfully stopped at road blocks and attempts are made to search their vehicles without presenting a probable cause.

However, one place remains where this link is preserved and cannot be broken even by the most obstinate constitutionally recalcitrant judge, and this place is a jury, since it's the final authority on both the validity of the accusation and the law based on which the accusation is leveled itself.

By the Constitution's establishment of a Supreme Court, and then lower courts the words themselves establish the Supreme Court as the final judge of judicial matters and so the interpretation of the Constitution. Would a lower court be the final decision on matters of the Constitution? No. There is a reason why their called a lower courts.

>...final judge of judicial matters and so the interpretation of the Constitution...<

To me, such "and so" inference is a leap of faith. Though it's not totally unreasonable, I disagree for a variety of reasons. However, if we start in this direction, we'll be wading into a territory too vast for this space and very far off its general theme and scope, so I suggest we cease and desist. Has been a pleasant discussion, though.

James Canchela

http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1791-us-bill-of-rights-1st-10-amendments-with-commentary" rel="nofollow">http://oll.libertyfund.org/pag...
The 10th amendment s to the rights of the states
"It should be noted that the Tenth Amendment does not say that powers not expressly delegated to the United States are reserved to the States. The authors of the Bill of Rights considered and specifically rejected such a statement. They believed that an amendment limiting the national government to its expressed powers would have seriously weakened it."
"During much of our history, the Tenth Amendment was interpreted as a limitation of the delegated powers of Congress. Since 1937, however, the Supreme Court has largely rejected this view, and the Amendment no longer has the same operative meaning or effect that it once had"

>It should be noted that the Tenth Amendment does not say that powers not expressly delegated to the United States are reserved to the States<

Read it. What part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States" don't you understand?

Nice to see debate over a historical argument that has been settled long since. As a Brit I take a Putinist view of America. I regard the US as an illegal entity set up by armed rebellion foisted on peaceable subjects by a radical faction of republican extremists against lawfully constituted authority and supported by a regime-changing foreign power. Not sure what colour the revolution was though.......

Gryzelda Wrr, III RP

Lol. I would support your claims if you were still part of the EU and I could hope for joining the US to the Union 😉

LOL

James Canchela

Grey?

Not that I agree with your view, but admit that it can be at least logically argued - requiring, however, that the Declaration of Independence must be proven to be legally invalid.

However, as you may easily perceive, our "debate" with Leopold hasn't been about the legality of the American Revolution but about the right of a State to secede from the union almost 100 years after the event.

Also, I don't think there's anything like "a Putinist" view on the matter of whether the US is legal entity or otherwise, since Putin has never expounded on it, not to mention that expecting anything of the kind from an ignorant boob like him would be utterly futile.

Irony? Satire? Tongue in cheek? Just call it Brit SOH. I wasn't being serious. My point was that you can make for multiple outcomes for just about any seminal event in political history. Putin argues that to change governments (or constitutions or established political entities) by force is ALWAYS illegal and destabilising and should be opposed. I merely wanted to show what a ridiculous view that actually is because nothing is fixed - history is dynamic. I mean - I can't get over that SOB William the Conqueror invading peaceful old Saxon England and forcibly bringing about regime change and then imposing serfdom and a class structure on a happy realm.......history is written by the victors so the view that secession was treasonous triumphed. It is almost certain that the founding fathers intended sovereignty to reside with the states (former colonies) and that these entities had freely entered into a union and could therefore withdraw from it if any felt it no longer served its interest to remain - I mean they had to didn't they to legitimise their own illegal secession by force from the British Empire. Subsequent developments (secession and civil war) tested and ultimately changed that theory and created a new reality. Incidentally they probably also did not intend women, negroes and Catholics to be members of 'all men' who were 'created equal' either but there's that pesky old history at work again changing the accepted meaning of things.

Yes serfdom was a French/Norman import.

Methought I understood British humor, but yours in this case was too subtle for my humor detection threshold ... my bad... need to readjust the sensor.

"It is almost certain that the founding fathers intended sovereignty to reside with the states". It's so obvious from reading the original founding documents that I would't even use "almost" here. In addition to the rest of the hallmarks, note how "united States" (sic) was capitalized - and, to your point, how it's changed in the "subsequent developments". The documents are also replete with such references as "free and independent States", "a free State", etc., not to mention that the whole Bill of Rights affair was solely intended to secure the freedom of the individual States against the federal usurpation of power.

p.s. One point seemingly lost on my interlocutors here is Bayer's inconsistency in that he obviously considers the secession of the former Soviet "republics" perfectly valid and yet labels that of the US South as ""treasonous and subversive act".
p.p.s. Thanks for the historic reference to William the B and serfdom, for it reminds me how the latter was imposed on the theretofore free Ukrainian kozaks by Russia after it destroyed the Zaporizhian Sich in 1775.

Methought I understood British humor, but yours in this case was too subtle for my humor detection threshold ... my bad... need to readjust the sensor.

"It is almost certain that the founding fathers intended sovereignty to reside with the states". It's so obvious from reading the original founding documents that I would't even use "almost" here. In addition to the rest of the hallmarks, note how "united States" (sic) was capitalized - and, to your point, how it's changed in the "subsequent developments". The documents are also replete with such references as "free and independent States", "a free State", etc., not to mention that the whole Bill of Rights affair was solely intended to secure the freedom of the individual States against the federal usurpation of power.

p.s. One point seemingly lost on my interlocutors here is Bayer's inconsistency in that he obviously considers the secession of the former Soviet "republics" perfectly valid and yet labels that of the US South as ""treasonous and subversive act".
p.p.s. Thanks for the historic reference to William the Bastard and serfdom, for it reminds me how the latter was imposed on the theretofore free Ukrainian kozaks by Russia after it destroyed the Zaporizhian Sich in 1775.

James Canchela

Agreed that Putin is an ignorant boob.

If anyone has a pic of this guy with his mouth closed it’s
going to be a collector’s piece.

True.

The real issue is that Trump and his supporters stand to make great personal profit from the lifting of sanctions against Russia. This apparently overrides all concerns about Putin's repressive and imperialistic regime.

The links between Trump's team and the Kremlin are extraordinary - Paul Manafort was a close adviser to Yanukovych. Carter Page worked for Gazprom for years and still owns shares in it. Trump himself is heavily invested in Russia, as his own son has admitted.

imagine Neville Chamberlain in 1938, but owning large investments in Hitler's Germany. That is what we are looking at now. It is the duty of all who love freedom to oppose Trump's candidacy

Attention

Add a picture
Choose file
Add a quote
Attention

Are you sure you want to delete your comment?

Attention

Are you sure you want to delete all user's comments?

Attention

Are you sure you want to unapprove user's comment?

Attention

Are you sure you want to move to spam user's comment?

Attention

Are you sure you want to move to trash user's comment?

Spelling error report

The following text will be sent to our editors: