General Discussion

longship

(40,416 posts)

25. Treason is defined in the Constitution.

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:23 AM

Jun 2013

It's in 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.

In history, a charge of treason was used against political opponents. The folks who wrote the Constitution wanted to make sure that in the USA a charge of treason was not a political move. I happen to agree with that.

What the Republicans are doing is despicable but it is clearly not treason. Calling it such comes off as hyperbole. The solution resides at the ballot box.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Breaking - Susan Rice is the new National Security Advisor [View all] malaise Jun 2013 OP

Good choice madokie Jun 2013 #1

Watch ReTHUGs whine malaise Jun 2013 #2

You know it madokie Jun 2013 #4

You'd go for sedition; I'd go for malaise Jun 2013 #5

Both applies madokie Jun 2013 #7

Treason is defined in the Constitution. longship Jun 2013 #25

I agree with sedition. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #15

The most cynical Republican response to this could be: karynnj Jun 2013 #13

Potential war hawk? Not ready to judge yet... CrazyJudy Jun 2013 #3

Valid point n/t malaise Jun 2013 #6

Another April Glaspie? Roland99 Jun 2013 #16

Yes, she was, something that's always troubled me.. mountain grammy Jun 2013 #19

it is possible that she learns from mistakes. BlancheSplanchnik Jun 2013 #23

Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin Jun 2013 #29

I can't wait to find out his selection for UN ambassador... Firebrand Gary Jun 2013 #8

And that's my reason for welcoming the decision malaise Jun 2013 #9

Samantha Power will be UN ambassador. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #12

Yay! Another bloodthirsty neo-liberal warmonger! leftstreet Jun 2013 #31

Diplomacy is war-mongering? JaneyVee Jun 2013 #35

Good. She has earned that position. nt Pragdem Jun 2013 #10

Benghazi! Major Hogwash Jun 2013 #11

I like it! pacalo Jun 2013 #14

Did you also support the invasion of Iraq? She sure did. Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #17

k&r... karl rove is not happy, which makes me happy...fuck you karl spanone Jun 2013 #18

I note that on some occasions, Republicans being against means instant support for the issue Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #20

Lying pos karl rove calling anyone a "liar" is Cha Jun 2013 #40

Haha! And they had a problem with her being SOS. AAO Jun 2013 #21

Bravo, Bravo, Bravo!!!!! sheshe2 Jun 2013 #22

malaise Diclotican Jun 2013 #24

There's a term for this in DC: Vindication. Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2013 #26

Kick n/t politicasista Jun 2013 #27

That's a good use of her very specific expertise acquired at the U.N. during this particular time.nt patrice Jun 2013 #28

He's on live on GEM$NBComcast malaise Jun 2013 #30

She is a neoliberal warmonger. Too bad. Comrade Grumpy Jun 2013 #32

That is a problem malaise Jun 2013 #33

Just great. Time to push a new war/intervention maybe? quinnox Jun 2013 #34

This was final straw for the RWingers. DCBob Jun 2013 #36

good choice arely staircase Jun 2013 #37

We'll see how Ms. Rice's stewardship as National Security Adviser stacks up against that of indepat Jun 2013 #39

K & R Scurrilous Jun 2013 #38