Treason is sort of like porn.
You know it when you see it.
On any given day his lawyers may argue six different things before breakfast.
You know good and well it has not passed such a declaration. The fact that we have a would-be autocrat who has taken to himself the power to take the U.S. into a state of war with another nation without Congressional authorization should make the charge of treason more valid, rather than somehow constituting a technicality that lets him off the hook.
Giving Iran a legitimate casus belli to justify attacking US military targets would seem to be “aid and comfort” to me.
Congress has abdicated its responsibility to declare war and allowed the President to do whatever he wants since 1945. We never declared war on Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq, either. This is a very bad thing IMO, but it’s not some new development under Trump.
Oh, well, nothing we can do.
I see nothing in your cite about a Congressional declaration of war.
Try again.
ETA: Looks like everyone else got there first.
Congress passed AUMFs for both Afghanistan and Iraq, IIRC. (I certainly remember the Iraq vote.) I was only ten when Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, but my recollection is that it was interpreted at the time as authorizing military force in Vietnam.
So AFAICT, a President taking us to war against another nation without any legislation authorizing him to do so is in fact a new thing.
The problem I have with that is that ISTM that would be true anytime the U.S. committed an act of war against another nation, whether or not it was authorized by Congress. The difference here is that we attacked a nation capable of retaliating against US targets away from the theater of war.
That’s true, there were AUMFs passed, which is arguably a distinction without a difference. But the War Powers Act allows the President to act unilaterally for (IIRC) 60 or 90 days before an AUMF becomes necessary, so Trump hasn’t violated that yet.
I appreciate your making this distinction. As we all agree, the Constitution defines treason very narrowly, while a traitor, as you point out, is merely someone who betrays. And one can betray this country in many ways that fall short of treason.
Consequently, one does not need to believe Trump has committed treason to regard him as a traitor to this country.
I wonder if the Founding Fathers would have made provisions for recall elections if they knew such as trump could ever be elected.
Distinction without a difference. YMMV.
Ah, but they knew someone like Trump could never get elected, because the common voters (who could be demagogued) don’t elect the president directly! Instead, they elect a member of the elite who would be able to easily see through the demagogue’s rhetoric and instead make the right choice for the country!
/s to make it obvious…
They never imagined something like trump, and I can believe it, because I’ve lived through it and I can’t believe it myself.
But they actually did, as @SunUp says the whole purpose of the Electoral College was to stop idiots like Trump from becoming president.
The electoral college becoming a rubber stamp for the voters and the parties was something that they may have not foreseen or at least didn’t know how to avoid.
Then by betraying Jesus, Judas committed treason??
Not only are they very different concepts that happen to overlap in the context of a nation-state, betrayal is a far more general concept that is operative in contexts that have nothing to do with nations.
Jesus has never been a country. Jesus was never a government. I suspect he may have existed, but just a nice person.
And I won’t derail anymore.
If he’s going to be impeached for anything, it will be for shits and giggles. No way will 67 Senators vote to convict. There are plenty of valid reasons- ignoring court orders, obstruction of justice (the Minneapolis executions), market manipulation, instructing the DOJ to make bogus indictments, illegally cutting funding from Congressionally approved programs, the list could go on and on. The question I have (but no answer to) is whether it’s better to impeach him so that his crimes are more publicized or to refrain from doing so and thus have Congress spend time trying to pass good legislation.
Then every president who oversaw a war is guilty of treason.