is not necessarily the same as the everyday meaning of the same word in modern colloquial English. It does not matter what the word means to you or me in everyday English. Legal definitions are generally more precise and circumscribed. Interpretation is also informed by case law and precedent.
Anyone interested in the construction of the word "treason" (or "enemy", for that matter) in the context of the Constitution can start here.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_3_1-2.html
When people are done doing the research, they can begin debating whether the language of the Constitution is best interpreted according to 18th century standards or through the prism a 21st century point of view. In other words, the discussion involves both constitutional expertise and careful consideration. The last thing we would want is for any party guilty of colluding with a foreign entity to corrupt a free and fair election to be found "not guilty" because he was charged with the wrong crime. It's best to defer to constitutional experts and scholars on matters like this.
Treason is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution for a very good reason. The founding fathers were, after all, revolutionaries themselves. They wanted to ensure that future citizens would not be easily accused of this heinous crime in the event that the people sought redress due to government corruption, abuse. or injustice.
= new reply since forum marked as read
