Is the word “traitor” definable at all, in your opinion? Presume for a moment that we intend to use it prior to a conviction for treason, meaning that we can’t assume that the courts will pull a temporary single-use definition of the defendant’s duty out of their ass for you to use.
Do keep in mind that I will keep in mind that the word “traitor” existed prior to the existence of the american court system while reviewing your answer.
But Congress doesn’t agree.
You have an opinion that he should be impeached. Congress has an opinion he should not.
Result: no impeachment.
Underlining mine.
Can you distinguish between a definition and a claim? For such a nitpicker, you keep confusing very different things.
If someone should be punished for something in your opinion, but manages to get away with it, does your opinion suddenly change to “I don’t think that person should be punished”?
Bricker - Would you consider a person running for the office of the President of the US, that knowingly conspired with a hostile foreign government to help them knowingly subvert and alter an election to be a traitor to the United States?
If you believe that the above is not a crime under treason, do you believe it’s a crime at all? And if so, what crime?
Someone disagreeing with you is not nitpicking.
Or Congress does agree, but feels it is in their personal political interests not to pursue. May not make a difference in the result, but I think it is significant.
I’ll try to explain it in simple terms.
I gave a definition. In this case, a definition of ‘traitor.’
I made a claim that Trump fits that definition.
No matter how strong or weak the claim is, no matter what words I use or don’t use in the claim, the definition is unaffected. It is what it is.
Bricker is welcome to disagree with the validity of my claim. He is welcome to poke holes in the argument I made for that claim. (Which I’ll admit isn’t one of my best.)
But even if he demonstrates that my claim is a pile of trash, that has nothing to do with the definition.
“Logic! Why don’t they teach logic at these schools?” - Prof. Digory Kirke
I want to know what Bricker and D’Anionia considerers a traitor to be. I think we should start in the dirt. With not looking at the Constitution.
From what I see of the Constitutional definition, it’s pretty wide open. Just like the words to allow impeachment.
Then we can debate it.
I think a “traitor” is someone who commits treason in the legal sense of the word. I adopt the existing caselaw of the United States in my definition.
The words of the Constitution are NOT wide open. Levying war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies, is relatively clear, and to the extent there are ambiguities, caselaw has further refined the definition.
Your definition includes words and concepts that themselves not defined, allowing you to defend your claim with ever-changing rationales that exclude people you wish to avoid calling traitors even when they meet your definition.
So your definition is useless.
You could define “traitor,” as “anyone who works against what I, RTFirefly, define as the best interests of the country.” That would be a definition, too. And that’s essentially what you’ve done.
It depends on HOW he gets away with it. If a person depreciates non-taxable income brought forth in the previous tax year (nonsense example words) I might think that’s something for which he should be punished.
If I then learn that such conduct is perfectly legal, then, as you suggest, my opinion suddenly changes to “I don’t think that person should be punished.”
Yours remains in favor of punishment?
:rolleyes:
Not clear at ALL. Define an enemy to the US. Define aid and comfort. It WAS left open to interpretation.
So. Answer my question I asked
If you cannot accept the idea that something may be legal, and yet morally/ethically wrong, then I don’t know what more I can say to you.
If I’m following your argument correctly, you’re saying that treason is currently a crime that is impossible to commit. The United States is not at war with any other country, so it’s impossible for anyone to give aid or comfort to an enemy or join an enemy in levying war against us, because we do not have any enemies in the legal sense. Treason is a crime that can only be committed during a time of war.
Is this an accurate interpretation of what you’re saying?
If you start an armed rebellion against the US then you are committing treason (actually not sure it has to be “armed” but not sure if anything less would suffice). No need for a formal declaration of war. Honestly not sure where the line is drawn on that. Rebellion with the intent to overthrow the government? Or is rebellion to not pay your taxes enough? (I really do not know.)
If a person were to attempt to seize control of the country from its rightful leaders through unlawful action, would that be rebellion?
What if they succeed and are made president?
ETA: I feel I should concede that I’m JAQing here - while I do think a tenuous argument could be made that hijacking an election is a form of rebellion, connecting the dots between what Trump did and such an argument is dodgy. In any case I reject the idiotic premise that you have to commit the legal crime of treason to be a traitor, and thus I don’t want to give the impression that I’m trying to make an argument based on that flawed definition.
As I said: I adopt the existing caselaw of the United States in my definition. Cramer v United States has an extended discussion, for example. Are you asking me to quote the various cases?
Yes.
Both the Supreme Court, and me, are saying that.
Sure I do. But I don’t accept the idea that YOUR ideas of “moral,” and “ethical,” have any place in a discussion about legal punishment.