However again a) treason is very specifically defined in the Constitution in a form that clearly excludes merely withholding allegiance and b) refusing to pledge allegiance is legally protected behavior.
I’m not sure that’s relevant. @Max_S said that “Citizens of the United States owe allegiance to the United States,” which is not the same thing at all as saying that they are obligated to recite the Pledge of Allegience. (Pledging to do something and actually doing it are two different things.)
I think that’s nitpicking. If it’s legal to refuse to pledge allegiance, then it has to be legal to not give allegiance. It’s still illegal to disobey specific laws, including ones about actively giving aid to a declared enemy; but that’s not the same thing.
And the worst cases of treason falls under “the worst cases” of “violation of this duty [of allegiance]”. Other potential examples include desertion and espionage. A number of capital crimes necessarily involve a breach of one’s duty of allegiance to the United States. Not all breaches are a capital crime though.
I disagree. Refusing to recite the pledge of allegiance or otherwise display outward patriotism does not exempt you from your duty to remain faithful to the country.
I also reject the idea that laws only exist or have force when written down. The idea of a comprehensive penal code is relatively modern. The whole category of crimes known as malus in se, or inherently evil, and I put acts of disloyalty in that category: treason, espionage, and the like.
~Max
Comparatively modern, yes. Before that you were subject to the whim of whoever was strongest. What was illegal was whatever they could enforce.
The advance to a specific written code was a great improvement.
And in any case claiming that something’s illegal in the modern USA because you personally think it’s immoral, or even because lots of people think it’s immoral, doesn’t follow. Especially not since the law specifically says that withholding allegiance is protected; it’s only committing specific illegal acts, defined in a much more limited fashion, which are forbidden.
I am not withholding mine. But other people are entitled to do so.
We’re getting onto a tangent here, but modern penal codes in the U.S. are a mid to late eighteenth century thing. Historically most crimes were prosecuted without the benefit of a statute defining what specifically is prohibited. It was not the case that anarchy prevailed. Such is still the system used in England, I believe. Criminal law was simply not codified, and judges relied more on precedent and their own reason. This was a big reason why Jacksonians pushed for elected judges in the 1830s. Even today some states still retain common law offences. Treason was a big exception for a long time.
Today most crimes in the U.S. are set out by statute, but not all of them. Michigan does not have a statute defining murder, North carolina does not have a statute defining burglary, etc. These are still valid crimes in their respective states. They have specific definitions, just not in a written code. They are prohibited by law, and people are convicted by law, because statutes are not the only source of criminal law.
Not my position. I pointed out there exists a category of crimes that are inherently wrong. I
did not claim all wrongful acts are inherently criminal.
The main point, I reiterate, is that patriotism requires allegiance. I also think it requires respect for the flag. Disrespecting the flag is unpatriotic but not necessarily illegal. The law does not prohibit flag desecration itself, nor does it require recital of the pledge of allegiance, nor does it prohibit all protests against government. I don’t consider all or even most protests against government unpatriotic - protesting is an American tradition unto itself. But some forms of disloyalty are prohibited and unpatriotic, like treason and desertion. That doesn’t necessarily make them wrong - neither patriotism nor law is the arbiter of right and wrong.
~Max
750.316 First degree murder; incarceration order upon conviction; penalty; definitions.
Sec. 316.
(1) Except as provided in sections 25 and 25a of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.25 and 769.25a, a person who commits any of the following is guilty of first degree murder and shall be punished by imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole:
(a) Murder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or any other willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.
(b) Murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, criminal sexual conduct in the first, second, or third degree, child abuse in the first degree, a major controlled substance offense, robbery, carjacking, breaking and entering of a dwelling, home invasion in the first or second degree, larceny of any kind, extortion, kidnapping, vulnerable adult abuse in the first or second degree under section 145n, torture under section 85, aggravated stalking under section 411i, or unlawful imprisonment under section 349b.
(c) A murder of a peace officer or a corrections officer committed while the peace officer or corrections officer is lawfully engaged in the performance of any of his or her duties as a peace officer or corrections officer, knowing that the peace officer or corrections officer is a peace officer or corrections officer engaged in the performance of his or her duty as a peace officer or corrections officer.
(2) Immediately following a conviction under this section, a court shall enter an order committing the convicted person to the jurisdiction of the department of corrections for incarceration in a state correctional facility pending sentencing using a form created by the state court administrative office for this purpose. This order becomes effective if both of the following apply:
(a) The sheriff agrees to transport for final sentencing the person from the state correctional facility to the county and from the county back to the state correctional facility.
(b) The convicted person was not less than 18 years of age at the time he or she committed the offense for which he or she was convicted under this section.
(3) A court shall hold the sentencing hearing not more than 45 days after a person is committed to the department of corrections under subsection (2).
(4) As used in this section:
(a) "Arson" means a felony violation under chapter X.
(b) "Corrections officer" means any of the following:
(i) A prison or jail guard or other prison or jail personnel.
(ii) Any of the personnel of a boot camp, special alternative incarceration unit, or other minimum security correctional facility.
(iii) A parole or probation officer.
(c) "Major controlled substance offense" means any of the following:
(i) A violation of section 7401(2)(a)(i) to (iii) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7401.
(ii) A violation of section 7403(2)(a)(i) to (iii) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7403.
(iii) A conspiracy to commit an offense listed in subparagraph (i) or (ii).
(d) "Peace officer" means any of the following:
(i) A police or conservation officer of this state or a political subdivision of this state.
(ii) A police or conservation officer of the United States.
(iii) A police or conservation officer of another state or a political subdivision of another state.
That’s not quite right either. They adopt the common law definition, which is a way to “define burglary.”
§ 14-51. First and second degree burglary.
There shall be two degrees in the crime of burglary as defined at the common law. If the crime be committed in a dwelling house, or in a room used as a sleeping apartment in any building, and any person is in the actual occupation of any part of said dwelling house or sleeping apartment at the time of the commission of such crime, it shall be burglary in the first degree. If such crime be committed in a dwelling house or sleeping apartment not actually occupied by anyone at the time of the commission of the crime, or if it be committed in any house within the curtilage of a dwelling house or in any building not a dwelling house, but in which is a room used as a sleeping apartment and not actually occupied as such at the time of the commission of the crime, it shall be burglary in the second degree. For the purposes of defining the crime of burglary, larceny shall be deemed a felony without regard to the value of the property in question. (1889, c. 434, s. 1; Rev., s. 3331; C.S., s. 4232; 1969, c. 543, s. 1.)
The elements are not given by the statute. It only prescribes the sentence for different types of murder. “A person who commits any of the following is guilty of murder[…]: murder perpetrated by means of poison, [etc.]”
~Max
Perhaps, but again the elements are not written in the statute. I think it was clear enough from context that I’m pointing out statutes do not necessarily have specific language as to what constitutes every crime, contrasted with the definition of treason thorny_locust characterized as “actively giving aid to a declared enemy”.
~Max
I was paraphrasing the US Constitution; which is the governing document of the country both of us are citizens of.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-3/ .
Article III Judicial Branch
Section 3 Treason Clause 1 Meaning Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
I disagree. The the French Partizans in WW2 certainly had no loyalty or allegiance to the French government of the time, but they were most definitely French patriots.
Arguably …
Allegiance is to a sitting government, to founding documents, or, most perniciously, to an individual leader.
Whereas patriotism is to a nation.
“Nation” being another word for linguistic / ethnic group we see the dangers inherent in unbridled patriotism.
We can also see the difference between allegiance to the Constitution and allegiance to donald fucking trump.
It is sometimes used that way.
I would say that my patriotism is to a nation where my definition of the American Dream is that a whole lot of very different people from different linguistic/ethnic groups can all live together without killing each other.
And my allegiance is to that nation; not to any individual sitting government of it. Allegiance to that nation may, and sometimes does, include opposing that government (in the form of public statements and of voting and if need be of active peaceful resistance. Not in the form of physically attacking government buildings or those therein.)
I don’t see why allegiance cannot be tied to a particular nation-state. And if your definition of nation isn’t broad enough for the American people to qualify, or for the French people to qualify, I say your definition is wrong.
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
De Gaulle was not considered a patriot by Vichy France, in fact he was convicted of treason in absentia soon after flying to London. A traitor is the opposite of a patriot. But he is considered a patriot in modern France, a nation-state he had a huge role in forming, and this is no contradiction.
~Max
As has been said, in various ways: the difference between a traitor and a patriot is who wins.
Well, I wish I could find a less anti-American source than TikTok, but after hearing about this I looked it up and it is true: chants of “USA! USA!” at the Harris rally:
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen anyone look as happy as Walz does at the end of that clip, LOL.
Well, apparently not everyone is happy about Harris taking pride in America:
God damn, if that’s not the most self righteous sanctimonious bullshit I have ever read…
And it’s also factually wrong. Football is still the most popular sport among every American age group, invluding young people. And most young people are definitely not politically engaged enough that we can say they care more about racism than football with a straight face.
My takeaway from the article is that some people desperately want the Left’s message to be as unpalatable as possible to most Americans.
If you’re so disgusted by… shudder… football watchers… 
… that you’re going to shit on the Democrats for trying to include them… you’re never going to get on the same page as mainstream Americans.
Yeah, it looks like the claim that football is a right wing thing (as in factually, obviously the article is correct in that “Democrat war on Football” is a right wing meme) is bullshit:
The kind of self-congratulatory “we’re so much more enlightened than you” elitism often seen on the Left tends to work on the principle that if the majority of people like something it must be bad. Not all of the Left or even most of it I think, but a very loud portion of it; presumably because they really, really want the rest of us to know how they are more enlightened, refined and sophisticated than us unwashed barbarians. I’ve seen that same sort of people get into rants about how the popularity of nature scenes on calendars is due to “Western Imperialism”.