An interesting fact about treason

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.

Well, like I said, I don't accept that there is an entity called the U.S. outside of either the states or the federal government.

I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying there is no entity known as the United States, only the individual States which are sovereign and the Federal Government which carries out certain limited duties the States allow it to have?
 
Interesting expansions on the definition of the word Treason.

From the 1913 Websters Dictionary:

Trea´son
n. 1. The offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power; disloyalty; treachery.
The treason of the murthering in the bed.
- Chaucer.
2. Loosely, the betrayal of any trust or confidence; treachery; perfidy.
If he be false, she shall his treason see.
- Chaucer.

But more interesting.... look at the word in the context of the Anti-Bellum years of our nation from the 1828 Noah Websters edition :

TREASON, n. tree'zn. [L. traho. See Draw and Drag.]

Treason is the highest crime of a civil nature of which a man can be guilty. Its signification is different in different countries. In general, it is the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. In monarchies, the killing of the king, or an attempt to take his life, is treason. In England, to imagine or compass the death of the king, or of the prince, or of the queen consort, or of the heir apparent of the crown, is high treason; as are many other offenses created by statute.

In the United States, treason is confined to the actual levying of war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Treason in Great Britain, is of two kinds, high treason and petit treason. High treason is a crime that immediately affects the king or state; such as the offenses just enumerated. Petit treason involves a breach of fidelity, but affects individuals. Thus for a wife to kill her husband, a servant his master or lord, or an ecclesiastic his lord or ordinary, is petit treason. But in the United States this crime is unknown; the killing in the latter cases being murder only.

By these definitions of the word each about a century apart from each other, what does it look like when we apply them to some of the more significant figures in government, society and pop culture?

Interesting eh?
 
Last edited:
The entity, singular, that is known as the nation of the United States of America.

Well, like I said, I don't accept that there is an entity called the U.S. outside of either the states or the federal government.

I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying there is no entity known as the United States, only the individual States which are sovereign and the Federal Government which carries out certain limited duties the States allow it to have?

Well the states or the federal government are the entities that have been known as the "United States," but that's essentially what I'm saying.
 
Well, like I said, I don't accept that there is an entity called the U.S. outside of either the states or the federal government.

I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying there is no entity known as the United States, only the individual States which are sovereign and the Federal Government which carries out certain limited duties the States allow it to have?

Well the states or the federal government are the entities that have been known as the "United States," but that's essentially what I'm saying.

But does constitutional interpretation depend on the vernacular, or on legal, historical and contextual principles? The Federal government exists for a purpose, to run...something. What, exactly? It's really a simple question, is there or is there not a single entity known as the United States of America, sovereign unto itself?

Isn't this fun? :D
 
Well, like I said, I don't accept that there is an entity called the U.S. outside of either the states or the federal government.

I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying there is no entity known as the United States, only the individual States which are sovereign and the Federal Government which carries out certain limited duties the States allow it to have?

Well the states or the federal government are the entities that have been known as the "United States," but that's essentially what I'm saying.

what you are saying would be true if we still lived under the articles of confederation. it is not true under the constitution which establishes a strong, centralized federal government.
 
I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying there is no entity known as the United States, only the individual States which are sovereign and the Federal Government which carries out certain limited duties the States allow it to have?

Well the states or the federal government are the entities that have been known as the "United States," but that's essentially what I'm saying.

But does constitutional interpretation depend on the vernacular, or on legal, historical and contextual principles? The Federal government exists for a purpose, to run...something. What, exactly? It's really a simple question, is there or is there not a single entity known as the United States of America, sovereign unto itself?

Isn't this fun? :D

No, the federal government exists to work on behalf of the states.
 
I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying there is no entity known as the United States, only the individual States which are sovereign and the Federal Government which carries out certain limited duties the States allow it to have?

Well the states or the federal government are the entities that have been known as the "United States," but that's essentially what I'm saying.

what you are saying would be true if we still lived under the articles of confederation. it is not true under the constitution which establishes a strong, centralized federal government.

The Constitution established a stronger more centralized federal government than the Articles, but the states were still designed to be the dominant party.
 
Well the states or the federal government are the entities that have been known as the "United States," but that's essentially what I'm saying.

But does constitutional interpretation depend on the vernacular, or on legal, historical and contextual principles? The Federal government exists for a purpose, to run...something. What, exactly? It's really a simple question, is there or is there not a single entity known as the United States of America, sovereign unto itself?

Isn't this fun? :D

No, the federal government exists to work on behalf of the states.

I see the problem here then.

So when the Constitution refers to treason as treason against the "United States", what does that mean to you since you are not of the opinion that the "United States" as an entity exists or is a sovereign against which one can commit treason?
 
But does constitutional interpretation depend on the vernacular, or on legal, historical and contextual principles? The Federal government exists for a purpose, to run...something. What, exactly? It's really a simple question, is there or is there not a single entity known as the United States of America, sovereign unto itself?

Isn't this fun? :D

No, the federal government exists to work on behalf of the states.

I see the problem here then.

So when the Constitution refers to treason as treason against the "United States", what does that mean to you since you are not of the opinion that the "United States" as an entity exists or is a sovereign against which one can commit treason?

It's clearly referring to the states.
 
No, the federal government exists to work on behalf of the states.

I see the problem here then.

So when the Constitution refers to treason as treason against the "United States", what does that mean to you since you are not of the opinion that the "United States" as an entity exists or is a sovereign against which one can commit treason?

It's clearly referring to the states.

Really? Then why does it not simply say the "States", or even the "united States"? Why the proper noun form "United States"?
 
I see the problem here then.

So when the Constitution refers to treason as treason against the "United States", what does that mean to you since you are not of the opinion that the "United States" as an entity exists or is a sovereign against which one can commit treason?

It's clearly referring to the states.

Really? Then why does it not simply say the "States", or even the "united States"? Why the proper noun form "United States"?

I've stated many times that the term "United States" used back then would be in reference to the states.
 
Really? Then why does it not simply say the "States", or even the "united States"? Why the proper noun form "United States"?

I've stated many times that the term "United States" used back then would be in reference to the states.

So the United States is not a sovereign nation.

The federal government is sovereign from the rest of the world, and the states are supposed to be sovereign to the federal government.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top