An interesting fact about treason

[goldcatt]

If that were true the United States would be referred to in the singular.

Your interpretation ignores the first phrase, Kevin. The term being defined is treason against the entity known as the United States.

My interpretation doesn't ignore it at all. My interpretation simply acknowledges that the phrase "United States" is qualified by being referred to in the plural rather than the singular.

Hardly qualified, but an affectation of late 18th and early 19th Century formal writing when referring to the Federal entity. That aside, treason can only be committed against the sovereign. Are you arguing that the Federal constitution outlining and controlling the Federal government applies only to the individual States, and does not create a new, sovereign entity?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Your interpretation ignores the first phrase, Kevin. The term being defined is treason against the entity known as the United States.

My interpretation doesn't ignore it at all. My interpretation simply acknowledges that the phrase "United States" is qualified by being referred to in the plural rather than the singular.

Hardly qualified, but an affectation of late 18th and early 19th Century formal writing when referring to the Federal entity. That aside, treason can only be committed against the sovereign. Are you arguing that the Federal constitution outlining and controlling the Federal government applies only to the individual States, and does not create a new, sovereign entity?

Their referring to the United States in the plural wasn't simply a way of speaking back then, it was the way they felt about the country. The Union was comprised of sovereign and independent states, so the phrase "United States" was in reference to those states. Only after the great centralization of power that occurred during and after the Civil War did "United States" come to mean the federal government.

The states were considered the sovereigns having only ceded a limited number of responsibilities and powers to the federal government and retaining the rest to themselves.

No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. Only that that particular Section of the Constitution is referring to the states rather than the federal government.

 

[goldcatt]

My interpretation doesn't ignore it at all. My interpretation simply acknowledges that the phrase "United States" is qualified by being referred to in the plural rather than the singular.

Hardly qualified, but an affectation of late 18th and early 19th Century formal writing when referring to the Federal entity. That aside, treason can only be committed against the sovereign. Are you arguing that the Federal constitution outlining and controlling the Federal government applies only to the individual States, and does not create a new, sovereign entity?

Their referring to the United States in the plural wasn't simply a way of speaking back then, it was the way they felt about the country. The Union was comprised of sovereign and independent states, so the phrase "United States" was in reference to those states. Only after the great centralization of power that occurred during and after the Civil War did "United States" come to mean the federal government.

The states were considered the sovereigns having only ceded a limited number of responsibilities and powers to the federal government and retaining the rest to themselves.

No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. Only that that particular Section of the Constitution is referring to the states rather than the federal government.

I disagree as to the usag of plural rather than singular, but I'll agree to disagree on that point as it's really moot to the discussion.

If the United States as an entity is a sovereign, but the definition of treason against the entity known as the United States in the Federal constitution applies only to the individual States and not to the Federal government, is it then impossible to commit treason against the nation? After all, there is no such thing as criminal common law.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hardly qualified, but an affectation of late 18th and early 19th Century formal writing when referring to the Federal entity. That aside, treason can only be committed against the sovereign. Are you arguing that the Federal constitution outlining and controlling the Federal government applies only to the individual States, and does not create a new, sovereign entity?

Their referring to the United States in the plural wasn't simply a way of speaking back then, it was the way they felt about the country. The Union was comprised of sovereign and independent states, so the phrase "United States" was in reference to those states. Only after the great centralization of power that occurred during and after the Civil War did "United States" come to mean the federal government.

The states were considered the sovereigns having only ceded a limited number of responsibilities and powers to the federal government and retaining the rest to themselves.

No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. Only that that particular Section of the Constitution is referring to the states rather than the federal government.

I disagree as to the usag of plural rather than singular, but I'll agree to disagree on that point as it's really moot to the discussion.

If the United States as an entity is a sovereign, but the definition of treason against the entity known as the United States in the Federal constitution applies only to the individual States and not to the Federal government, is it then impossible to commit treason against the nation? After all, there is no such thing as criminal common law.

Well I don't think it's moot at all, as it seems to me to be the foundation of the discussion, but we can certainly agree to disagree.

The federal government isn't technically sovereign, however. It has, after the Civil War, become the dominant party, but that's not what the Constitution intended to happen. The states were meant to remain sovereign, and that's why treason is defined as waging war against them rather than the federal government.

 

[goldcatt]

Their referring to the United States in the plural wasn't simply a way of speaking back then, it was the way they felt about the country. The Union was comprised of sovereign and independent states, so the phrase "United States" was in reference to those states. Only after the great centralization of power that occurred during and after the Civil War did "United States" come to mean the federal government.

The states were considered the sovereigns having only ceded a limited number of responsibilities and powers to the federal government and retaining the rest to themselves.

No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. Only that that particular Section of the Constitution is referring to the states rather than the federal government.

I disagree as to the usag of plural rather than singular, but I'll agree to disagree on that point as it's really moot to the discussion.

If the United States as an entity is a sovereign, but the definition of treason against the entity known as the United States in the Federal constitution applies only to the individual States and not to the Federal government, is it then impossible to commit treason against the nation? After all, there is no such thing as criminal common law.

Well I don't think it's moot at all, as it seems to me to be the foundation of the discussion, but we can certainly agree to disagree.

The federal government isn't technically sovereign, however. It has, after the Civil War, become the dominant party, but that's not what the Constitution intended to happen. The states were meant to remain sovereign, and that's why treason is defined as waging war against them rather than the federal government.

You just posted that you were not making that very argument. So are you arguing the Federal government is sovereign, or are you arguing that it is not?

Edit: I should qualify and use the term "the entity known as the Unitd States" rather than "Federal government", since the entity is the sovereign that is simply run by the government. My bad!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I disagree as to the usag of plural rather than singular, but I'll agree to disagree on that point as it's really moot to the discussion.

If the United States as an entity is a sovereign, but the definition of treason against the entity known as the United States in the Federal constitution applies only to the individual States and not to the Federal government, is it then impossible to commit treason against the nation? After all, there is no such thing as criminal common law.

Well I don't think it's moot at all, as it seems to me to be the foundation of the discussion, but we can certainly agree to disagree.

The federal government isn't technically sovereign, however. It has, after the Civil War, become the dominant party, but that's not what the Constitution intended to happen. The states were meant to remain sovereign, and that's why treason is defined as waging war against them rather than the federal government.

You just posted that you were not making that very argument. So are you arguing the Federal government is sovereign, or are you arguing that it is not?

I believe I misread what you posted before, my mistake.

The federal government is not technically sovereign over the states, but the Constitution did create the federal government and the states did cede certain powers to the federal government in that compact.

 

[goldcatt]

Well I don't think it's moot at all, as it seems to me to be the foundation of the discussion, but we can certainly agree to disagree.

The federal government isn't technically sovereign, however. It has, after the Civil War, become the dominant party, but that's not what the Constitution intended to happen. The states were meant to remain sovereign, and that's why treason is defined as waging war against them rather than the federal government.

You just posted that you were not making that very argument. So are you arguing the Federal government is sovereign, or are you arguing that it is not?

I believe I misread what you posted before, my mistake.

The federal government is not technically sovereign over the states, but the Constitution did create the federal government and the states did cede certain powers to the federal government in that compact.

I edited my post, there is of course a difference between the government and the entity it runs. I would agree the government is not the sovereign, it serves the sovereign which is the Federal entity.

Want a chance to reply to my edit?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You just posted that you were not making that very argument. So are you arguing the Federal government is sovereign, or are you arguing that it is not?

I believe I misread what you posted before, my mistake.

The federal government is not technically sovereign over the states, but the Constitution did create the federal government and the states did cede certain powers to the federal government in that compact.

I edited my post, there is of course a difference between the government and the entity it runs. I would agree the government is not the sovereign, it serves the sovereign which is the Federal entity.

Want a chance to reply to my edit?

Well I'm not sure I'd agree that there is a tangible entity called the "United States" separate from the states or the federal government, depending on whether you use that phrase in the classical or modern sense. Before the Civil War the phrase "United States" would have been in reference to the individual states, and today it would normally be in reference to the federal government.

 

[xotoxi]

Treason is defined as revolution against one of the states of the United states and not the federal government.

He failed.

 

[goldcatt]

I believe I misread what you posted before, my mistake.

The federal government is not technically sovereign over the states, but the Constitution did create the federal government and the states did cede certain powers to the federal government in that compact.

I edited my post, there is of course a difference between the government and the entity it runs. I would agree the government is not the sovereign, it serves the sovereign which is the Federal entity.

Want a chance to reply to my edit?

Well I'm not sure I'd agree that there is a tangible entity called the "United States" separate from the states or the federal government, depending on whether you use that phrase in the classical or modern sense. Before the Civil War the phrase "United States" would have been in reference to the individual states, and today it would normally be in reference to the federal government.

Then why does the COTUS define treason, which can only be committed against the sovereign, as treason against the "United States" if the United States is not itself a soveriegn entity?

 

[xotoxi]

Then why does the COTUS define treason, which can only be committed against the sovereign, as treason against the "United States" if the United States is not itself a soveriegn entity?

When is COITUS defined as treason?

I think that would be ADULTERY.

 

[Liability]

Historically, in the olde days of yore, the correct way of discussing these United States was to say, "the United States are a great nation."

It would have sounded quite odd to them to say "the United States is a great nation."

Why? Because they GOT it back then. WE are a group of sovereign states forming a larger Republic.

Somewhere over time, we seem not just to have forgotten that point, but we have gotten to the point of thinking it quaint. We were right then. We have become muddled in our thinking. The language only shows the way we have moved.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I edited my post, there is of course a difference between the government and the entity it runs. I would agree the government is not the sovereign, it serves the sovereign which is the Federal entity.

Want a chance to reply to my edit?

Well I'm not sure I'd agree that there is a tangible entity called the "United States" separate from the states or the federal government, depending on whether you use that phrase in the classical or modern sense. Before the Civil War the phrase "United States" would have been in reference to the individual states, and today it would normally be in reference to the federal government.

Then why does the COTUS define treason, which can only be committed against the sovereign, as treason against the "United States" if the United States is not itself a soveriegn entity?

Well as I said, the phrase "United States" is in reference to the individual states.

 

[xotoxi]

Historically, in the olde days of yore, the correct way of discussing these United States was to say, "the United States are a great nation."

How do you know that?

How old are you?

Are you old enough to be decrepit?

 

[Liability]

Historically, in the olde days of yore, the correct way of discussing these United States was to say, "the United States are a great nation."

How do you know that?

I read a lot.

How old are you?

Technically, just a tiny bit older than dirt.

Are you old enough to be decrepit?

I look back longingly on the days of mere decrepitude.

 

[goldcatt]

Then why does the COTUS define treason, which can only be committed against the sovereign, as treason against the "United States" if the United States is not itself a soveriegn entity?

When is COITUS defined as treason?

I think that would be ADULTERY.

And if you committed adultery against the King, get out your ouija board and ask Anne Boleyn what happens.

 

[Liability]

Well I'm not sure I'd agree that there is a tangible entity called the "United States" separate from the states or the federal government, depending on whether you use that phrase in the classical or modern sense. Before the Civil War the phrase "United States" would have been in reference to the individual states, and today it would normally be in reference to the federal government.

Then why does the COTUS define treason, which can only be committed against the sovereign, as treason against the "United States" if the United States is not itself a soveriegn entity?

Well as I said, the phrase "United States" is in reference to the individual states.

No. It isn't.

It is a reference to the individual states and the Federal Republic.

 

[goldcatt]

Well I'm not sure I'd agree that there is a tangible entity called the "United States" separate from the states or the federal government, depending on whether you use that phrase in the classical or modern sense. Before the Civil War the phrase "United States" would have been in reference to the individual states, and today it would normally be in reference to the federal government.

Then why does the COTUS define treason, which can only be committed against the sovereign, as treason against the "United States" if the United States is not itself a soveriegn entity?

Well as I said, the phrase "United States" is in reference to the individual states.

So then the United States as a nation is not sovereign?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then why does the COTUS define treason, which can only be committed against the sovereign, as treason against the "United States" if the United States is not itself a soveriegn entity?

Well as I said, the phrase "United States" is in reference to the individual states.

So then the United States as a nation is not sovereign?

What are you referring to when you say the U.S.?

 

[goldcatt]

Well as I said, the phrase "United States" is in reference to the individual states.

So then the United States as a nation is not sovereign?

What are you referring to when you say the U.S.?

The entity, singular, that is known as the nation of the United States of America.