An interesting fact about treason

[Kevin_Kennedy]

in other words, you're making it up as you go along.

No.

yes. you are.

Nuh uh.

 

[goldcatt]

Kevin, you know I love ya. But don't you see where applying one single historical common law concept to the very first phrase of the treason clause means that in order to interpret it the way you do, one would have to deny the sovereignty (otherwise known as autonomy and supremacy within its borders) of the national entity known as the United States?

Somehow I doubt that's what the Framers had in mind when they granted the Federal government all power in foreign affairs and inserted the Supremacy Clause. Not to mention the very existence of several other provisions, among others the Full Faith and Credit clause and Ninth Amendment. You cannot simply cling to one word in a vacuum without context and expect it to mesh with the system as a whole. It doesn't work.

 

[jillian]

maybe kevin doesn't recognize the sovreignty of the united states.

that's what his 'analysis' sounds like to me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, you know I love ya. But don't you see where applying one single historical common law concept to the very first phrase of the treason clause means that in order to interpret it the way you do, one would have to deny the sovereignty (otherwise known as autonomy and supremacy within its borders) of the national entity known as the United States?

Somehow I doubt that's what the Framers had in mind when they granted the Federal government all power in foreign affairs and inserted the Supremacy Clause. Not to mention the very existence of several other provisions, among others the Full Faith and Credit clause and Ninth Amendment. You cannot simply cling to one word in a vacuum without context and expect it to mesh with the system as a whole. It doesn't work.

The states are sovereign within their borders, but they ceded the power to conduct foreign affairs to the federal government. It's not denying the sovereignty of the federal government to say that the states are supposed to be the dominant party in the compact.

 

[goldcatt]

Kevin, you know I love ya. But don't you see where applying one single historical common law concept to the very first phrase of the treason clause means that in order to interpret it the way you do, one would have to deny the sovereignty (otherwise known as autonomy and supremacy within its borders) of the national entity known as the United States?

Somehow I doubt that's what the Framers had in mind when they granted the Federal government all power in foreign affairs and inserted the Supremacy Clause. Not to mention the very existence of several other provisions, among others the Full Faith and Credit clause and Ninth Amendment. You cannot simply cling to one word in a vacuum without context and expect it to mesh with the system as a whole. It doesn't work.

The states are sovereign within their borders, but they ceded the power to conduct foreign affairs to the federal government. It's not denying the sovereignty of the federal government to say that the states are supposed to be the dominant party in the compact.

Then by definition you are denying the united States is a sovereign nation, since it is neither autonomous nor supreme. Assuming you are correct, then and only then would your interpretation of the treason clause be correct since treason could not be committed against an entity that either does not exist or is not sovereign.

But somehow I don't think creating nothing is what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the document.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, you know I love ya. But don't you see where applying one single historical common law concept to the very first phrase of the treason clause means that in order to interpret it the way you do, one would have to deny the sovereignty (otherwise known as autonomy and supremacy within its borders) of the national entity known as the United States?

Somehow I doubt that's what the Framers had in mind when they granted the Federal government all power in foreign affairs and inserted the Supremacy Clause. Not to mention the very existence of several other provisions, among others the Full Faith and Credit clause and Ninth Amendment. You cannot simply cling to one word in a vacuum without context and expect it to mesh with the system as a whole. It doesn't work.

The states are sovereign within their borders, but they ceded the power to conduct foreign affairs to the federal government. It's not denying the sovereignty of the federal government to say that the states are supposed to be the dominant party in the compact.

Then by definition you are denying the united States is a sovereign nation, since it is neither autonomous nor supreme. Assuming you are correct, then and only then would your interpretation of the treason clause be correct since treason could not be committed against an entity that either does not exist or is not sovereign.

But somehow I don't think creating nothing is what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the document.

I think I see our problem. You're thinking of the U.S. as a nation, which is not what it was ever intended to be. The framers created a federal government, to work on behalf of the sovereign states, as opposed to a national government. The U.S. is a confederation of independent states.

 

[goldcatt]

The states are sovereign within their borders, but they ceded the power to conduct foreign affairs to the federal government. It's not denying the sovereignty of the federal government to say that the states are supposed to be the dominant party in the compact.

Then by definition you are denying the united States is a sovereign nation, since it is neither autonomous nor supreme. Assuming you are correct, then and only then would your interpretation of the treason clause be correct since treason could not be committed against an entity that either does not exist or is not sovereign.

But somehow I don't think creating nothing is what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the document.

I think I see our problem. You're thinking of the U.S. as a nation, which is not what it was ever intended to be. The framers created a federal government, to work on behalf of the sovereign states, as opposed to a national government. The U.S. is a confederation of independent states.

The constitution was written specifically so the US would no longer be a confederation of independent states. What you describe would have been status quo. Why did they bother?

 

[Liability]

The phrase "the United States" was originally treated as plural—e.g., "the United States are"—including in the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1865. It became common to treat it as singular—e.g., "the United States is"—after the end of the Civil War. The singular form is now standard; the plural form is retained in the idiom "these United States".[15]

United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah yeah. Wiki is a sucky source as sources go.

True enough.

But sometimes they get things right and even provide a short-cut for sourcing such matters. Just look at the goldmine in footnote 15: Language Log: Life in these, uh, this United States

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then by definition you are denying the united States is a sovereign nation, since it is neither autonomous nor supreme. Assuming you are correct, then and only then would your interpretation of the treason clause be correct since treason could not be committed against an entity that either does not exist or is not sovereign.

But somehow I don't think creating nothing is what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the document.

I think I see our problem. You're thinking of the U.S. as a nation, which is not what it was ever intended to be. The framers created a federal government, to work on behalf of the sovereign states, as opposed to a national government. The U.S. is a confederation of independent states.

The constitution was written specifically so the US would no longer be a confederation of independent states. What you describe would have been status quo. Why did they bother?

Well that's incorrect.

 

[geauxtohell]

The phrase "the United States" was originally treated as plural—e.g., "the United States are"—including in the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1865. It became common to treat it as singular—e.g., "the United States is"—after the end of the Civil War. The singular form is now standard; the plural form is retained in the idiom "these United States".[15]

United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah yeah. Wiki is a sucky source as sources go.

True enough.

But sometimes they get things right and even provide a short-cut for sourcing such matters. Just look at the goldmine in footnote 15: Language Log: Life in these, uh, this United States

I think in this day and age, wiki is far game. At the very least, it's up to the other person to disprove Wiki as opposed to just dismissing it outright.

I like it because I use it to find primary sources for the topics.

 

[geauxtohell]

I think I see our problem. You're thinking of the U.S. as a nation, which is not what it was ever intended to be. The framers created a federal government, to work on behalf of the sovereign states, as opposed to a national government. The U.S. is a confederation of independent states.

The constitution was written specifically so the US would no longer be a confederation of independent states. What you describe would have been status quo. Why did they bother?

Well that's incorrect.

Is that your best rebuttal?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The constitution was written specifically so the US would no longer be a confederation of independent states. What you describe would have been status quo. Why did they bother?

Well that's incorrect.

Is that your best rebuttal?

Yes.

 

[goldcatt]

Well that's incorrect.

Is that your best rebuttal?

Yes.

Thank you.

 

[California Girl]

At the risk of repeating my sig....

".... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." Thomas Jefferson - The Declaration of Independence.

Americans are not only allowed to overthrow our government, it is our duty to do so. It says so in the Declaration. Therefore, it is not treasonous to overthrow our government.

 

[goldcatt]

At the risk of repeating my sig....

".... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." Thomas Jefferson - The Declaration of Independence.

Americans are not only allowed to overthrow our government, it is our duty to do so. It says so in the Declaration. Therefore, it is not treasonous to overthrow our government.

Whether treason exists as a legitimate crime and the relevance of the Declaration of Independence v the Constitution is a totally different argument - several of them, actually.

 

[California Girl]

At the risk of repeating my sig....

".... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." Thomas Jefferson - The Declaration of Independence.

Americans are not only allowed to overthrow our government, it is our duty to do so. It says so in the Declaration. Therefore, it is not treasonous to overthrow our government.

Whether treason exists as a legitimate crime and the relevance of the Declaration of Independence v the Constitution is a totally different argument - several of them, actually.

I know..... but I do love that bit of the Declaration. It always makes me smile. I'm a Revolutionary at heart! I'd have been a great Founding Mother.

 

[goldcatt]

At the risk of repeating my sig....

".... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." Thomas Jefferson - The Declaration of Independence.

Americans are not only allowed to overthrow our government, it is our duty to do so. It says so in the Declaration. Therefore, it is not treasonous to overthrow our government.

Whether treason exists as a legitimate crime and the relevance of the Declaration of Independence v the Constitution is a totally different argument - several of them, actually.

I know..... but I do love that bit of the Declaration. It always makes me smile. I'm a Revolutionary at heart! I'd have been a great Founding Mother.

You're such a radical.

 

[editec]

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

Poppycock.

 

[FA_Q2]

by many here

or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

That is quite an interesting way of wording it. I am going to go turn myself in to my commander for treason now and all military are required to give the enemy aid and comfort in unique situations (like capture) as per the Geneva Conventions.

Language is never all that cut and dry

 

[editec]

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.

I think that's probably true, KK.

It didn't work out that way, though.

The coupe de gras to States having more power than the FEDs is often thought to have been the civil war.

I think it was probably really the federal income tax.

At first the FEDs imposed income taxes only rarely. Usually only during time of war, and even then it effected few people.

Then...

By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time

Note that the STATES THEMSELVES allowed this to happen?