Traitor to what? You have to be very careful in determining what exactly he took an oath to. An oath is a legal contract ... so wording is important.
If Constitution of the United States of America differs from CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA then the question must be asked: what support, defense is being pledged to what constitution?
A contract = a constitution.
I know this may not be a very popular view. technicalities do matter. Especially, under a BAR-association driven vassalage.
Traitor to what? You have to be very careful in determining what exactly he took an oath to. An oath is a legal contract ... so wording is important.
If Constitution of the United States of America differs from CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA then the question must be asked: what support, defense is being pledged to what constitution?
A contract = a constitution.
I know this may not be a very popular view. technicalities do matter. Especially, under a BAR-association driven vassalage.
How well do you know UCMJ?
I am sure that there are certain ...eh .... a priori ideas forgotten to be made explicit or expressed.
See Scotus ruling: 1816. Marshall writing for the majority on the federal creating banks.
As to your question: it does not compute a workable answer as the word: well is quite fit for interpretation.
So... you're full of it. Gotcha.
Ah ... again ... a sentence without real meaning, as you, me and everyone else is full of "it" too. Nice Gotcha.
What it means is still left wide open to interpretation, injection of opinion.
Savvy?