Thinking about it, and I suppose IMHO is best. Looking for opinions after all. Though this might be moved I’m sure. I know this is a very contentious subject.
Fictional events are welcome. As are historic events.
To be clear, we are talking about American citizens. Look in a law dictionary or whatever source/s you choose for the definition of ‘Levying War’.
So, the IMHO question -
What would you define as Levying War on the United States (by an American citizen). Multiple scenarios are welcome.
This may not rise to the full meaning of “levying war”, but I think the discussion might start here.
Interesting Mr. Greenjeans. I’ve not read much about that. And, also IMHO, does not rise to levying war. It was a major protest for sure, but they did not try to overthrow the US government.
John Walker Lindh comes to mind , though he was prosecute for terrorism not for specifically related to levying war on the US.
Also Omar Khadr though he was a child at the time, and detained without trial for years (as a child) so unlike John Walker Lindh was the victim of a gross misjustice IMO (not to mention being Canadian not American)
Modnote: Neither of these are on-topic for the OP. Please stay on topic which is Levying War against the US.
I’m going to assume that you are getting the phrase “levying war against the United States”, from Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which defines it as part of the crime of Treason.
Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Ex parte Bollman, said that levying war means the actual waging of war against the United States. He took note that while conspiring to levy war, raising men to levy war and etc are also bad and could be crimes, they are not the same as actually levying war, so by themselves don’t meet the constitutional treason definition. Thus one definition of levying war, as given by our mast famous early jurist–is the actual waging of war against the United States.
There is no requirement that the goal be to overthrow the government.
I’ll start with this then, from - Levying war legal definition of Levying war
LEVYING WAR, crim. law. The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution.
Bolding mine.
But of course we would have to look at the definition of treason -
the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
And from the constitution -
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
I think we should look at Act 1 of this play. What is “Levying War”. The definition is above. What is levying war in your opinion?
Yes I got it from that.
No stipulation that levying war against the US is treason. OK. Seeing that.
It would not be treason to attack the United States Government unless you had the intent of overthrowing the government.
Is that how to read that?
.
I’m going to bump my own thread.
In my opinion, gathering a group of 1000+ people to attack the Capitol of the United states to overturn a free and fair election to get yourself installed as the President of the United States falls within the definition of levying war against the United States. They attacked the Capitol of the United States.
It’s right there in the definition/s I provided above.
Yes it would be and absolute shit storm to charge a former president with treason. But we can’t just look the other way. If we don’t hold the leaders of this attempt to overthrow the government accountable, it’s just going to happen again and again.
I think it’s the other way around. Treason includes “levying war against” the United States, regardless of whether the goal is to overthrow the government. I suspect the most ordinary examples of “treason” would be US citizens who join a foreign military force engaged in armed conflict with the United States (a number of US citizens joined the Waffen SS, for example; Lindh would have struck me as an entirely on-topic example). That can obviously extend to a domestic military force (like the armed forces of the CSA), which were clearly engaged in “levying war against” the United States and, thus, engaged in treason.
I don’t really know the line where you cross into “levying war,” but it certainly seems more intense and formal than violent protest.
Some of these folks where organized, if a bit rag tag. Others just attacked.
I think the line was crossed when they attacked the capitol with the intent of installing their own dictator, and kill the VP.
Setting aside the evidentiary challenges, I don’t see a particularly coherent definition of “levying war” here. I would be hard pressed to conclude that any single act of political violence was “levying war” (except as part of an ongoing armed conflict), but it’s equally true that many (most) things that constitute “levying war” have none of the elements you articulated.
I would personally put it at the point where there is sufficient threat to the nation that an organized and significant military response is required in order to deal with it. If police organizations can deal with the situation, then it’s not war. Even if you call up the state’s national guard or something, it’s not enough.
It must be necessary for the armed forces in general to form a response - not saying that it requires full mobilization of the entire army or anything, but something that requires at least a significant portion of the armed forces to respond. They need to be capable of holding some territory which will require a major military operation to dislodge them, and probably need to actually be doing so, or at least attempting to secure such territory in the first place, before I’d consider them to be ‘waging war’.
I’m not sure about that… Most of the acts of war by Japan against the US during WWII, the response was entirely handled by firefighters.
Perhaps it’s a two-part inquiry. Is there a “war” going on? And is this person “levying” it? There are a lot of examples that strike me a clearly “levying war” that are handled by law enforcement. George Dasch or William Colepaugh (to pick random examples) were (in my view) “levying war” but were arrested by the FBI.
Yeah, that’s a good way to put it. An individual levying war might be handled by law enforcement, but there must be a war going on that they are a part of.
But what if the plot is foiled before that military response is required?
Say (just for the sake of the hypothetical, ya know) a certain Texas senator has secretly mustered several thousand commandos in multiple locations with the intent of taking over several blue state capitols by force. Everything has been organized via dark web, but the FBI cracks the network and, just before the day of the attack, is able to apprehend the offensive’s leaders with strike forces in the various cities.
The senator and other leaders certainly intended to levy war against the US. Are they not guilty of treason simply because the war was thwarted?
Well, attempted murder is not murder. Attempted war, therefore, is not war.
So it isn’t treason unless blood is spilled? I can’t buy that.
Well, by the narrow constitutional definition of treason, it probably doesn’t, I’d say. At least, I would definitely say it doesn’t fall under levying war, since no war took place. There’s probably plenty of crimes the people involved are guilty of, but just like with murder, you don’t get to convict someone of actual murder unless there was actually a murder.