Then maybe someone was already suggesting that the constitution be amended.
I know correct grammar and punctuation usage are particularly important to you, so please allow me to mention that it’s erroneous to use an apostrophe where you did. Well, unless you’re trying to say, “How could the Court interpret that any differently than it is plain language?” Do you see how that doesn’t make sense?
Now, more seriously, please don’t make the silly assumption that you’re the only person who ever read the Constitution.
I think you need to read the clause more closely. I’ve made the emphasis a little different that you did:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” (emphasis added)
Note that the statement is “or.” Not “and,” not “and/or.” Merely “or.”
This means that treason against the United States can be construed to mean that only “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,” can suffice to commit the act of treason. That’s it. That’s all it takes. Because that little word, “or,” means that only one thing or the other is required. Not both.
Now, I understand interpretations of this clause are rather thin and have rested on our being in a time of active warfare. We haven’t often tried folks for treason, and certainly never in this particular situation. But the meaning of the actual words in the Constitution is very clear. That “or” is very important, and perhaps it’s time for some new legislation/interpretation on this issue.
With respect to the words, “giving them Aid and Comfort,” that’s entirely open to interpretation – and is required to be interpreted by the trier(s) of fact.
As for requiring an amendment, I disagree. Suppose Congress decides to expand our definition of war to include an overt act of cyber attack on our infrastructure, including election infrastructure? This simply expands our understanding of war in a modern context, something commonly done by the Congress. Perhaps long overdue.
You see how an amendment is not the only way to make a change? Or do you think we should leave this new frontier of warfare against our country unaddressed and vulnerable, simply because the Founders didn’t know the word, “cyber”?
Completely agree Aspenlow. I suspect the sticky wicket is ‘enemies’. Does the interference in our election process elevate them to enemy from hostile?
That is open to interpretation, but I would say it does. Russia interfered in our election process, to either just make a mess by helping Trump get elected, or to have a completely compromised person elected to the highest office in the land.
Putin is just having a great time with this. He has a moron in the oval office that not only is compromised, but trump actually seems to idolize Putin.
IMHO, Trump is both incompetent and compromised. All his actions point to this.
Oh, and to trumpets that are going to say I’m calling for war? That is simply not the case. I call for secure elections. Something that republicans shot down. Makes me think that most of them are complicit in this mess. And I wonder why that little move has not gotten more airtime.
Seems to me that this precedent is on a lot firmer ground than Roe v. Wade.
Sure – it’s also possible that dogs can fly, if we just let evolution play out a little.
It isn’t “hand waving” to point out the silliness of your suggestion. It’s a rebuttal – and an exceedingly good one at that. And I didn’t even touch on the best reason to think this is the lame idea: remember when Obama declassified the CIA torture report? Well, at the time, the Senate was narrowly in the hands of Dems, but the House was in Republican hands. What happens if the President wants to declassify the report – which in this case was extremely important for the public to know – but the House rejects the President’s power to do so? Reason two why your idea is terrible.
Sure. And congress can do all sorts of things to thwart things the president does without approval. Checks and balances.
What if president Trump loses his bid for re-election in 2020 so on January 19, 2021 he hands over the names of all our spies? Is impeachment a check on his power here? A purported billionaire might lose his pension?
You seem fine with relying on the good graces of a single person to protect the interests of the country. I’m not.
Sigh. Only 40 cases of treason have been tried since the foundation of this country, and even fewer have resulted in convictions. A summit with Putin doesn’t meet the threshold. And it is silly to state otherwise.
No, it is just hand waving.
If the point of these threads is to have Bricker come in and tell us what the law is this would be a boring message board and this thread would be one post long.
Pointing out a flaw in the system to have you smugly proclaim what the law is completely misses the point.
The people who sheltered Anne Frank broke the law. The people who killed her were following the law. In your world, if I complained about the killing of Anne Frank, you’d be telling me the LAW says she dies, end of story. Yeah maybe someday the laws will change but fat chance of that. :rolleyes:
Yes. Because “enemies,” requires objective declared war, as opposed to someone’s opinion. That is not just my, um, opinion, but a requisite element from case law and statute.
I agree. Of course, the Ex Post Facto clause would be a barrier to defining war in this way and then applying it to behavior that happened before the change. And of course Congress is free to make such a change and call it something other than “treason,” and thus avoid the Constitutional constraints anyway.
But any change Congress made would still require specifics – they can replace the requirement of a declared war, certainly. But it cannot be replaced with a vague, “Well, they are an enemy because it’s just obvious.” Some sort of objective criteria must exist, or the law will fail another constitutional test: it will be void for vagueness.
“I don’t know what the law is, but I should still be allowed to make confident assertions about its effect without being called out for my errors!”
Seems to me that in “Great Debates” the point is to…oh I dunno, maybe debate…the effect.
Considering you don’t bother to argue the effects one can only assume you have no argument so resort to chanting, “This is the law go home, this is the law go home, this is the law go home.” My proof? You just used an ad hominem attack rather than debate the points made. Great Debates short hand for, “I’ve got nuthin…”
[sub](hat-tip to Jim Jefferies)[/sub]
Sometimes, Bricks, the conversation has to go beyond what is legal and what is not. It sometimes has to go past that to what is good and what is evil, what is constructive and what is destructive, or maybe even what other consequences may occur beyond “The Law Is Being Followed”. The Law is a human construct, prone to corruption in its construction, and to accept The Law as the final word on a subject when you suspect that The Law is defective is a laziness of ethics.
Sometimes(as Dickens noted) “The law is a ass-a idiot”
I do understand this. Given that we haven’t made a formal declaration of war since June of 1942, I’d say this is an area that is ripe for a change. Otherwise, it boils down to saying we’re helpless to defend ourselves against a rogue “president” unless Congress chooses to make a formal declaration of war. Pretty dumb.
I am quite sure the Founders did not anticipate a Congress as… dysfunctional (and I am not using the word that is actually in my thoughts) as the one we have now, choosing to ignore what the majority of the country can very clearly see is happening.
I think people know treason when they see it. I may have been among the first on this board to use the term openly, but I did not do so lightly. I will say again here as I have said elsewhere on this board: If the things Trump is doing in his quest to save himself aren’t treason, e.g. using his office to baldly act against the interests of this country, then the words in the Constitution are meaningless. That doesn’t mean I expect him to be tried as a traitor under the current state of the law.
Nowhere did you see me advocate for a retroactive definition, or for anything vague. For Trump, I would be perfectly satisfied to see a successful impeachment/removal/prosecution for crimes he has committed. Such a smorgasbord from which to choose! They will be more than sufficient in his case. I’d like to see him prosecuted for treason, but I understand this probably won’t happen. It won’t stop me from calling him a traitor.
I’m simply pointing out that a functioning Congress need not be helpless in the face of what we are presently enduring.
There are many things that will be codified in the wake of this “presidency” that never were before. I expect we’re going to see very specific rules about emoluments, what constitutes an abuse of executive power, etc. I view it more as a reflection of our slipping standards for minimum requirements for leadership. For more than 240 years, obvious baselines did not need to be spelled out. Sadly, now they do. With specificity, of course.
IMO, in order for a debate to be “great”, in should be based on facts, not feweelings. Some posters throw around terms like “illegal”, “unconstitutional”, and now “treason” with abandon.
That is not a Great Debate.
The United States has not declared war since World War II but I am very, very confident it would have been possible to commit treason during the various undeclared wars that have happened since.
Because the portion of the debate to which I am responding is not about the effects, but about what the law is. “Is Trump, plain and simple, a traitor to his country?” My very first post here asked for how we’re defining ‘traitor:’
The portion of the debate I’m responding to grew out of answers to those questions.
You’re trying to throw out legal terms and conclusions, and then, when your arguments are rebutted, falling back on, “Well, what the law says doesn’t really matter!”
Sure it does, if you define “traitor,” as arising from treason.
If you define it in some more nebulous way, some definition that arises from your opinions and feelings, that’s fine – but then I have nothing to add. Your opinions and your feelings are perfectly valid – for you. You may BELIEVE Trump is a traitor to your opinions and ideals. But that’s never going to be basis of objective standards. It’s merely your personal view. You’re welcome to it, but when you try to slip it in as a basis for an argument in Great Debates, you’ll get called out.
Does your confidence arise from some legal authority? Or does your really really truly certitude arise from an opinion about what “treason,” should be at law?
- If you were trying for mocking condescension the term is “feewings”, not "“feweelings”.
- Neither is mocking condescension a Great Debate.
Surely such posts should be easy to expose for their worthless content and send the poster packing, tail between their legs.
Or you could keep taking a page from Trump and just tell us the posts are bad, no good, totally failing posts because reasons.
Congress can impeach without being bound by any legal definitions at all. We’re NOT helpless.
Your complaint is that Congress doesn’t agree with you. But that’s a feature, not a bug: we elected Congress, and no one elected you.
If the majority of the country can clearly see it happening, we have only to wait until January 3rd, 2019, to end the national nightmare. That’s when the “I promise impeachment” candidates elected overwhelmingly in November 2018 take office.
But that’s not happening. Even most Democrats in the House are not running on an “impeach Trump,” platform, and especially not the House (currently) minority leadership.
So that’s where your grandiose plans fall apart when confronted with reality.
No, we won’t. That won’t happen, and when I post again in four years, resurrecting this thread to point out it didn’t happen, you should not feel alarmed. No one besides me will criticize you for your incorrect prediction.
Which I answered in my first post. And we’re back to the law says “X”. End the debate because there is no debate says Bricker.
You seem to be going on about me telling you the law says something it doesn’t but I am not doing that.
I have been arguing that the law, as it stands is flawed and suggesting ways it might be better. Your answer to that has been, “But the law says…!”