Some vague sentences. Because you said so. Nine justices because the SCOTUS regularly charges people with crimes, or conducts criminal investigations. As the judicial system does. Some tradition which is the actual statute.
The statutory language for a charge of "treason" refers to foreign enemies, while purely internal treachery is called "sedition" in the statute. But the historical usage of the word "treason" covers both: the most famous treason prosecutions in the UK (Guy Fawkes) and the US (the failed accusations against Aaron Burr) involved no foreign enemy. It is correct to observe that the charge would not be captioned "treason" but rather "sedition"; it is not however incorrect to use "treason" in the vernacular, much as we speak of "robbery" although "larceny" is the term that would be used in an indictment.
The outcome of the election should be decided by constitutional authorities such as county boards, state executives, the judiciary, and the Congress; forcefully insisting that a mob should decide instead is a direct attempt to overthrow all the constitutional authorities. There is nothing to prove here: it was all out in the open.
"In the Constitution, treason refers to aiding a foreign power" No. There is no word "foreign" in the constitutional text, which can be (and was, during the founders' own time) applied to domestic enemies as well. The statutory distinction between "treason" where the enemies are foreign and "sedition" where the enemies are domestic is later."Did he want to stop the certification? Yes" And that is "treason" in the constitutional sense, though the statutory language is sedition."You need to show that he planned armed intervention to stop the certification, which you can't because he didn't." ??? He didn't just plan it, he actually did it, although his intervention failed.
Treason never succeeds, and for this there's a reason.When treason succeeds, none dare call it treason.
Courts aren't going to help us much here, my friends, whether it is called treason or sedition. 2022 starts in 10 days, and if we lose the house and don't take a clear senate majority in that year, we are toast.
(2)the term “enemy” means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;
Notwithstanding the need to now define "hostilities," that definition seems to me broad enough to include the activities of certain individuals on January 6th. Obviously, I'm missing something here.
The term hostility is very well defined. I'm not going to look it up for you. You have a search engine. I gave you a link to a massive resource base that includes all the definitions of the terms you may question.
1) And 200 years of developed precedent. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy has been clearly articulated in law to refer to aiding a hostile combatant in a wartime posture. This kind of semantic futzing to try to get to an interpretation that suits your wished-for outcome is exactly what the "originalists" do when they try to make the 2nd Amendment refer to private citizens owning assault weapons.
2) And nothing (yet) that actually shows Trump acted to bring about the destruction of the United States. If the DOJ were so foolish as to indict him now on treason charges, what evidence is there? At most he might be forced to admit that he spoke carelessly to a big and enthusiastic crowd. What evidence do you have that his plan - his conspiracy, with others - was to force Congress to suspend the certification by violent means? What evidence do you have that he then intended to suspend the Constitution? Or to use the military to take over the rule of the nation?
I fully believe he and his crew were capable of these things, and it's possible that they tried. It's also possible that they were testing the waters, or flailing in a last-ditch attempt to stall the certification so that the lawyers could find some new grounds to contest it in court. Which would make it evil and maybe illegal, but far short of sedition.
I await further evidence of actual collusion with key people at DOD to use armed power to suspend the government. I think it's possible that it exists, but I would be horrified if any court convicted Trump or his crew on present information. That's the very definition of a kangaroo court.
Yes. Certainly when a legal indictment is handed down it should be captioned "sedition" rather than "treason" in accord with the statute. When people are talking in the vernacular however, there is no reason not to use the word "treason" in its historical sense. And when someone says the Constitution requires that the offense of treason does not include internal sedition, that is simply wrong.
Right.
Some vague sentences. Because you said so. Nine justices because the SCOTUS regularly charges people with crimes, or conducts criminal investigations. As the judicial system does. Some tradition which is the actual statute.
But sure, you know what you're talking about.
Run along now. We're done.
800,000 down, just 333,055,383 to go here in the U.S. before we have this thing under control.
The statutory language for a charge of "treason" refers to foreign enemies, while purely internal treachery is called "sedition" in the statute. But the historical usage of the word "treason" covers both: the most famous treason prosecutions in the UK (Guy Fawkes) and the US (the failed accusations against Aaron Burr) involved no foreign enemy. It is correct to observe that the charge would not be captioned "treason" but rather "sedition"; it is not however incorrect to use "treason" in the vernacular, much as we speak of "robbery" although "larceny" is the term that would be used in an indictment.
The outcome of the election should be decided by constitutional authorities such as county boards, state executives, the judiciary, and the Congress; forcefully insisting that a mob should decide instead is a direct attempt to overthrow all the constitutional authorities. There is nothing to prove here: it was all out in the open.
"In the Constitution, treason refers to aiding a foreign power" No. There is no word "foreign" in the constitutional text, which can be (and was, during the founders' own time) applied to domestic enemies as well. The statutory distinction between "treason" where the enemies are foreign and "sedition" where the enemies are domestic is later."Did he want to stop the certification? Yes" And that is "treason" in the constitutional sense, though the statutory language is sedition."You need to show that he planned armed intervention to stop the certification, which you can't because he didn't." ??? He didn't just plan it, he actually did it, although his intervention failed.
You are triggered because you know everything you say is a castle made of sand.
He was coached to sat that by someone who knew the idiot would blurt out the truth without a second's thought.
The problem with Ashley Babbit:
They didn't shoot her enough times.
Miss Lindsey was right-blood should have run down the stairs in rivers.
Hooked up to digital polygraphs over a dunk tank would also be fun. Every lie gets you closer to dropping in the tank.
Treason never succeeds, and for this there's a reason.When treason succeeds, none dare call it treason.
Courts aren't going to help us much here, my friends, whether it is called treason or sedition. 2022 starts in 10 days, and if we lose the house and don't take a clear senate majority in that year, we are toast.
Thanks. From the link:
(2)the term “enemy” means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;
Notwithstanding the need to now define "hostilities," that definition seems to me broad enough to include the activities of certain individuals on January 6th. Obviously, I'm missing something here.
The term hostility is very well defined. I'm not going to look it up for you. You have a search engine. I gave you a link to a massive resource base that includes all the definitions of the terms you may question.
The statutory distinction between "treason" where the enemies are foreign and "sedition" where the enemies are domestic is later.
Cool. That's what we call "established precedent."
1) And 200 years of developed precedent. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy has been clearly articulated in law to refer to aiding a hostile combatant in a wartime posture. This kind of semantic futzing to try to get to an interpretation that suits your wished-for outcome is exactly what the "originalists" do when they try to make the 2nd Amendment refer to private citizens owning assault weapons.
2) And nothing (yet) that actually shows Trump acted to bring about the destruction of the United States. If the DOJ were so foolish as to indict him now on treason charges, what evidence is there? At most he might be forced to admit that he spoke carelessly to a big and enthusiastic crowd. What evidence do you have that his plan - his conspiracy, with others - was to force Congress to suspend the certification by violent means? What evidence do you have that he then intended to suspend the Constitution? Or to use the military to take over the rule of the nation?
I fully believe he and his crew were capable of these things, and it's possible that they tried. It's also possible that they were testing the waters, or flailing in a last-ditch attempt to stall the certification so that the lawyers could find some new grounds to contest it in court. Which would make it evil and maybe illegal, but far short of sedition.
I await further evidence of actual collusion with key people at DOD to use armed power to suspend the government. I think it's possible that it exists, but I would be horrified if any court convicted Trump or his crew on present information. That's the very definition of a kangaroo court.
You seem overly invested in this argument.
Yes. Certainly when a legal indictment is handed down it should be captioned "sedition" rather than "treason" in accord with the statute. When people are talking in the vernacular however, there is no reason not to use the word "treason" in its historical sense. And when someone says the Constitution requires that the offense of treason does not include internal sedition, that is simply wrong.