NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, folks, we've all heard about legislators who pass laws that they know to be unconstitutional just to see how much SCOTUS cuts out, and we've seen legislators who try to draft laws to "get around" constitutional restrictions (TRAP laws aimed at abortion clinics and many gun control statues come to mind).

My question is simple: in a country that has a written constitution should the willful violation of constitutional rights through staute, application, or action constitute treason?

Ok, folks, we've all heard about legislators who pass laws that they know to be unconstitutional just to see how much SCOTUS cuts out, and we've seen legislators who try to draft laws to "get around" constitutional restrictions (TRAP laws aimed at abortion clinics and many gun control statues come to mind).

My question is simple: in a country that has a written constitution should the willful violation of constitutional rights through staute, application, or action constitute treason?
In my opinion? It depends on the situation. Treason is one of those things that the definition isn't clear-cut enough to put it all into one box and let it lie....there are many forces to take into consideration. However, in many cases, yes, I do believe it would constitute as treason.

Can we still hang people for that? *crosses fingers eagerly*

Simonist']In my opinion? It depends on the situation. Treason is one of those things that the definition isn't clear-cut enough to put it all into one box and let it lie....there are many forces to take into consideration. However, in many cases, yes, I do believe it would constitute as treason.

Can we still hang people for that? *crosses fingers eagerly*

Only if congress decides that is the appropriate punishment.

Article III, Section 3, second paragraph.

Only if congress decides that is the appropriate punishment.
Wow, I, ah......didn't expect you to answer that seriously. That second part was a joke, man. Not serious at all.

My question is simple: in a country that has a written constitution should the willful violation of constitutional rights through staute, application, or action constitute treason?
Only if not for the greater good; something so grey, its hard to say.

Ok, folks, we've all heard about legislators who pass laws that they know to be unconstitutional just to see how much SCOTUS cuts out, and we've seen legislators who try to draft laws to "get around" constitutional restrictions (TRAP laws aimed at abortion clinics and many gun control statues come to mind).

My question is simple: in a country that has a written constitution should the willful violation of constitutional rights through staute, application, or action constitute treason?
It's not that easy, much as I wish it were so, because the Constitution, despite what people like Scalia and Thomas argue, is a living document, and interpretations of it change with the changes in society, and there can be good faith disagreements about what's Constitutional and what isn't.

It's not that easy, much as I wish it were so, because the Constitution, despite what people like Scalia and Thomas argue, is a living document, and interpretations of it change with the changes in society, and there can be good faith disagreements about what's Constitutional and what isn't.

I agree, but I still feel that there is something of a difference between an honest disagreement and the willful violation. TRAP laws are a good example, especially because their proponents will often even admit that they exist only to violate an established right.

Could a mod please fix the title of the poll, my keyboard is going and the "e" is missing in the word "treason."

Could a mod please fix the title of the poll, my keyboard is going and the "e" is missing in the word "treason."
Don't worry about it, man.....they'll know what you're getting at by the thread title.

I think "treason" should apply to those deliberately trying to overthrow the government. There are some grey areas though; manipulating the vote may possibly be considered treason as this would in affect be over-throwing the legal government.
I certainly wouldn't consider everyone who had a drink during prohibition traitors.

No. Legally, treason is a very specific charge. It means that when your country is at war with an external enemy you provide aid or comfort to that enemy or you yourself wage war against your country. Though the dictionary definition may be broader, the legal definition is quite clear.

: the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war; specifically : the act of levying war against the United States or adhering to or giving aid and comfort to its enemies by one who owes it allegiance

Reagan sold arms to the enemy. Then took the money and gave it to a group congress specifically said not to fund (Constitution give congress the power to spend money) I can't think of anything that could be more treason.

Ok, folks, we've all heard about legislators who pass laws that they know to be unconstitutional just to see how much SCOTUS cuts out, and we've seen legislators who try to draft laws to "get around" constitutional restrictions (TRAP laws aimed at abortion clinics and many gun control statues come to mind).

My question is simple: in a country that has a written constitution should the willful violation of constitutional rights through staute, application, or action constitute treason?


Article 3 Section 3 of the US constituion

Section 3. 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.

Under this Defitinion given in the constitution, no.

No. Legally, treason is a very specific charge. It means that when your country is at war with an external enemy you provide aid or comfort to that enemy or you yourself wage war against your country. Though the dictionary definition may be broader, the legal definition is quite clear.

: the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war; specifically : the act of levying war against the United States or adhering to or giving aid and comfort to its enemies by one who owes it allegiance

I know what the costitution defines as treason now, I was just wondering what people thought. See, the legal definition of treason and activities that most people would consider treason are two very different things, I'm mnore interested in the later.

I asked the question because I'm curious where people draw the line between "crimes against the state" and simply dishonesty. It's an internet discussion board, pretty much everything is some kind of thought experiment ;)

oh well in that case

NO

trying to get away with stuff is a time honored politcal (indeed HUMAN) tactic. we shouldnt punish someone for our lack of willingness to enforce the constitution.

Yes, but supporting the KGB should not.

It should be considered treason, because it goes against the very ideas of freedom that America was founded on.

I know what the costitution defines as treason now, I was just wondering what people thought. See, the legal definition of treason and activities that most people would consider treason are two very different things, I'm mnore interested in the later.

I asked the question because I'm curious where people draw the line between "crimes against the state" and simply dishonesty. It's an internet discussion board, pretty much everything is some kind of thought experiment ;)
I think the words you might be looking for then would be sedition or dereliction of duty.