Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unblock

(54,344 posts)
9. how is he possibly guilty of treason? it's defined in the constitution and involves actual arms.
Sun Dec 11, 2016, 08:37 PM
Dec 2016

interference in an election, accepting foreign help in an election, etc., might be violations of federal law, and they might be impeachable offenses (not that republicans would impeach him), but they're not actual "treason" as defined in the constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 3: Treason[edit]


Iva Toguri, known as Tokyo Rose, and Tomoya Kawakita were two Japanese Americans who were tried for treason after World War II.
Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

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.

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]

Recommendations

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

Because Republicans hate Hillary more than Russia Jean-Jacques Roussea Dec 2016 #1
Yes, that's a tough sell NewJeffCT Dec 2016 #36
That assumes you'd lobby for Hillary The Hitman Dec 2016 #2
And these electors are complete jackasses. duffyduff Dec 2016 #14
They don't function as electors. They rubber stampers. ooky Dec 2016 #23
I know. The EC is as broken as the rest of it. n/t duffyduff Dec 2016 #24
It's used as an honor Yupster Dec 2016 #38
HRC needs 37 more electors. The Hamilton electors need 270. Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #22
Since Hillary won the popular vote treestar Dec 2016 #35
Because they don't care. sarah FAILIN Dec 2016 #3
If he is charged and found guilty of treason he CANNOT legally be president. NoGoodNamesLeft Dec 2016 #6
how is he possibly guilty of treason? it's defined in the constitution and involves actual arms. unblock Dec 2016 #9
They put their fucking partisanship over the good of the country. duffyduff Dec 2016 #25
Sadly, the Republicans don't care as long as they have power NoGoodNamesLeft Dec 2016 #4
I still don't get why we aren't pushing for this The Hitman Dec 2016 #5
Who is WE? pangaia Dec 2016 #27
And who are the ones that DON'T want it? That is even more interesting. AgadorSparticus Dec 2016 #37
first, it's just not going to happen. second, the "best case" is president pence or ryan. unblock Dec 2016 #7
So we just give up? The Hitman Dec 2016 #8
no, we fight in other ways. the electoral college is incapable of stopping this train wreck. unblock Dec 2016 #10
I would feel infinitely more comfortable The Hitman Dec 2016 #11
Not constitutionally. Don't think it can't happen just because it hasn't happened yet. ancianita Dec 2016 #12
yeah, and trump could just as well turn out to be a great fdr liberal in disguise. unblock Dec 2016 #16
The safe claim. Until it's done. ancianita Dec 2016 #17
No we'd just be giving up like the Dems always do. If the tables were turned, the Repugnants would politicaljunkie41910 Dec 2016 #18
I cannot agree with this comment any more The Hitman Dec 2016 #20
"pansies"? Really? onenote Dec 2016 #28
Because 37 people aren't going to flip. One or two, maybe. Not 37. LisaL Dec 2016 #13
It's not unreasonable El Mimbreno Dec 2016 #33
Not a coup. The Electors are free agents. They can vote for anyone they want, constitutionally. baldguy Dec 2016 #15
It could happen, but don't count on it. They certainly won't pick Clinton. hellofromreddit Dec 2016 #19
Finally! A member of Congress with Backbone! The Hitman Dec 2016 #21
$$$$$$$ ...POWER..... and BIGGLY FEAR of reprisals.. pangaia Dec 2016 #26
Because electors are highly partisan Orangepeel Dec 2016 #29
Some complained of getting death threats flamingdem Dec 2016 #30
Because they're afraid of making his supporters mad. musicblind Dec 2016 #31
Too late! They are barking mad already! Generic Other Dec 2016 #40
It's not going to happen bowens43 Dec 2016 #32
I would hope these people treestar Dec 2016 #34
If it happens they probably will not pick Clinton Generic Other Dec 2016 #39
Because Congress SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #41
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why are we writing off th...»Reply #9