Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
When does it become "treason"?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JSRG" data-source="post: 75643188" data-attributes="member: 418772"><p>When it comes to prosecuting someone for treason, the United States uses the definition of the constitution, not that of a dictionary. And the Constitution gives a very specific and narrow definition of treason:</p><p></p><p>"Treason against the United States, <strong>shall consist only</strong> in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."</p><p></p><p>Is this levying war? No. At most, they've tried to abuse the laws or rules and made a bunch of false statements. This is not levying war. Your specific citation is them objecting to the counting of the electoral votes. That is not treason; that is a perfectly allowable thing to do under the Electoral Count Act. Is it a wise thing to do? A moral thing to do? Maybe not. I now have my concerns about what will happen in a future presidential election where the House and Senate are both controlled by the opposite party of the winner. But the point is, not only is it not actual war, it's also allowed. It's not treason.</p><p></p><p>I do wish to also respond to the claim that "The presenting of the electoral college results to Congress <u>has always </u> been a mere formality, particularly when the results are so heavily skewed in one candidate's favor." (emphasis added) This is inaccurate. It is true that it is almost always a mere formality, not always. The results of the 1876 election were <em>very much</em> in dispute almost up until the day congress formally counted the vote. This resulted in the Compromise of 1877 where they reached an informal agreement in which the votes went to Rutherford Hayes in exchange for the end of Reconstruction. I suppose someone can say that by the time they counted the votes it was a formality, but that's really splitting hairs in my view.</p><p></p><p>Having established it is not levying war, is it "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"? This is even more clearly a no. (for the record, "enemies" means actual official enemies--that is, those the country has formally declared war on)</p><p></p><p>So there is no treason here. Period. Someone can certainly criticize their objecting to the count, but to claim it is treason is not a valid objection.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JSRG, post: 75643188, member: 418772"] When it comes to prosecuting someone for treason, the United States uses the definition of the constitution, not that of a dictionary. And the Constitution gives a very specific and narrow definition of treason: "Treason against the United States, [B]shall consist only[/B] in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Is this levying war? No. At most, they've tried to abuse the laws or rules and made a bunch of false statements. This is not levying war. Your specific citation is them objecting to the counting of the electoral votes. That is not treason; that is a perfectly allowable thing to do under the Electoral Count Act. Is it a wise thing to do? A moral thing to do? Maybe not. I now have my concerns about what will happen in a future presidential election where the House and Senate are both controlled by the opposite party of the winner. But the point is, not only is it not actual war, it's also allowed. It's not treason. I do wish to also respond to the claim that "The presenting of the electoral college results to Congress [U]has always [/U] been a mere formality, particularly when the results are so heavily skewed in one candidate's favor." (emphasis added) This is inaccurate. It is true that it is almost always a mere formality, not always. The results of the 1876 election were [I]very much[/I] in dispute almost up until the day congress formally counted the vote. This resulted in the Compromise of 1877 where they reached an informal agreement in which the votes went to Rutherford Hayes in exchange for the end of Reconstruction. I suppose someone can say that by the time they counted the votes it was a formality, but that's really splitting hairs in my view. Having established it is not levying war, is it "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"? This is even more clearly a no. (for the record, "enemies" means actual official enemies--that is, those the country has formally declared war on) So there is no treason here. Period. Someone can certainly criticize their objecting to the count, but to claim it is treason is not a valid objection. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
When does it become "treason"?
Top
Bottom