Civics question

[ashling]

[elleng]

1. Rarely if ever.

1.The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
2.The action of betraying someone or something.

Gotta vote them OUT.

[ashling]

5. # 2 fits perfectly

as hyperbole, however - call it a philosophical or theory question - it helps to frame the discussion about the seriousness of political obstruction

[elleng]

9. Right, hyperbole.

They ain't gonna hang for their awfulness, but they sure should be kicked off the island.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Never?

[SteveG]

3. When it gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

Which it is.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

4. If I understand the kind of obstruction you are alluding to, the answer is never.

From Article III of the Constitution:

Section 3.

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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

[JaneyVee]

7. You don't think the American Taliban is at war against the US Govt.?

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

20. Anyone who is working within the system is obviously not at war with it

Some things never change.

[Nye Bevan]

6. About the only way I can think of this happening,

is say there is a Russian spy in Washington stealing military secrets. The authorities are on the spy's trail. But then someone knowingly obstructs the investigation, so the spy is not caught, more secrets are stolen, and more American lives are put in danger.

[longship]

8. Under our Constitution, treason has a very specific and narrow legal definition.

Here, from Article III:

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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The purpose of this definition is because charges of treason were for centuries used to oppress political opposition. The founders knew this, as apparently some here at DU do not.

Treason is a serious, and historically often capital, crime. There was a time in my life when the ultra fringe right siezed the term to describe many on the left. This, was an extension of the Red scare and McCarthyism of the early fifties. The John Birchers printed a political diatribe entitled, None Dare Call It Treason. Of course, the reason people didn't dare is because treason is defined in the Constitution. That didn't stop the Birchers from leveling the charge nonetheless, if only in their lunatic publications.

I would hope that DUers wouldn't want to go down that same path.

I don't like the GOP or Tea Baggers any more than anybody. But what they do may be obstructionalist, but it is not treason.

So please stop using that term in this context.

Thanks.

[ashling]

10. Yes and no

You have given a good explication of the constitutional crime of treason. However, before it was defined by the constitution it was, and still is, a word . The quote "none dare call it treason" refers more specifically to the fact that the crime of treason is always defined by the sovereign.

In earlier centuries even "encompassing" the death of the king or sovereign was considered treason. I am certain that this made royal doctors, medical attendants, etc, attending a dying king rather skittish. I believe it was Edward IV who first narrowed this down.

Your admonition to "So please stop using that term in this context," - and, for the record, I the op does not supply a constitutional or even criminal context - context however is problematic in that treason is just a word. Constitutional Treason is, as we agree, very narrowly defined. However, the "word" treason is a little more encompassing. So, yes, any discussion of treason should have s definition of terms or usage. As an educator, I am enamored with the Socratic method. I am even considering using this as a critical thinking assignment.

[longship]

12. As you say, yes and no. ;)

You are indeed correct about "treason" in previous historic contexts, as I alluded also. What is important here is those previous contexts were precisely why the founders thought it was important to explicitly define the term in our Constitution.

So, I must conclude that in the context of our country's governance, and indeed any other context in the USA, but especially in the context of our Constitution, "treason" is not just a word. It is a word with a very specific meaning.

Some would rip it out of that context. That is what I find troubling, especially because of its previous historic and political abuses. I mean, that's why they put the definition in there to begin with; so that people couldn't use it as a political weapon.

I will stand by my post.

[Major Nikon]

11. Certainly impeachment could apply

Seeing as how the bar for that is a blowjob.

[longship]

13. Ballot box is the solution.

Impeachment also has a definition in the Constitution. Anyway, the blow job didn't come close to rising to the necessary level to be upheld in the Senate. (No pun intended.)

[Major Nikon]

14. Changing Senate rules seems to be a more immediate remedy

[longship]

15. Indeed, it may very well be.

But allow me to take a devil's advocacy position for a moment.

1. Reid and Dems are afraid of nuclear option because GOP may be back on top as soon as 2015. I truly think that they are terrified about this, which is why it didn't go down in January as many of us might have wanted.

2. With the GOP's horrible attitude toward the Dems, Obama is stuck in a rut. However, the voters still seem to like him a lot. This was punctuated this last week by new polling showing his numbers actually rising.

So, what do you do in this situation?

Myself, I have to shrug. I am not the President.

But he has some very smart people surrounding him who are undoubtedly aware of the situation.

I just don't know, and I don't think many of us here do either.

Just a little devil's advocacy.

[Major Nikon]

16. It's important to remember the reason for those rules in the first place

The idea was that since Senators were more given to compromise those rules would be very infrequently used and would enhance the bargaining power of the minority on select issues that were vitally important to them. The GOP now uses it for virtually everything, and I just don't see the Democrats using it to that extent ever, nor should they. As such it becomes far more powerful to one party compared to the other. They should have deep sixed it years ago. The US would be a far better place if they had.

[longship]

17. But understand why Dems are reticent to pull that trigger.

They are, I think, terrified of what the GOP could do without a filibuster.

Of course, the GOP could pull the trigger themselves in the next Congress if they gained a majority (and there would be no defections on their side).

That's the Hobson's choice the Democratic Party faces right now.

What would you do if you had the Oval Office?

I would go for it. But first I would use the power of that Oval Office to get the Senate and House Dems on my side. Too bad Obama doesn't have a little LBJ in him. That's why I regret his mere half Senate term. He's damned inexperienced, and i am afraid that it shows. Especially to the GOP, who have smelled blood in the water since he took office.

Am I wrong here?

[Major Nikon]

18. I'm not going to say if you are wrong or not because I don't know

However I see it a little differently. I don't see a big advantage to killing the filibuster right now. The GOP owns the House, so it's not as if they are going to use it to pass much legislation they couldn't otherwise. It would free up some appointments, but thats about it. Reid will continue to use the threat of the nuclear option for leverage. I suspect he will try to wait it out till the next election cycle.

I would sooner see it go. If the country hands over all the reins to the Republicans again, we deserve what we get. I don't see that happening. The GOP has proven incapable of reinvention and they will keep losing market share. The GOP can't gerrymander the Senate and the filibuster can only harm us from now on.

[Luminous Animal]

19. If you were teaching civics, that would be a remarkably ignorant question.