26 thoughts on “There Is No Such Thing as Treason”

  2. You have it backwards, Actually, the argument is that the Constitution IS a contract and is therefore not “morally” binding on those who are not party to it. All this in service of a nonsense conclusion – that treason is an imaginary crime.

    Uh, this is intellectual garbage. Treason is a very real crime. It is defined very explicitly in the Constitution and at least some of the attackers on January 6th committed it.

    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

    Now the argument offered is that “treason” does not exist because the Constitution is a contract and no living person agreed to that contract. That is a nonsense argument. No one claims the Constitution is a contract. It is the framework on which we build the rule of law in this country. It applies to people who like it and to those who don’t. We are ALL subject to the rule of law. There are no get out of jail free cards even for those who abjure fealty to the Constitution. It simply does not work that way. That Americans may not be “morally bound by the US Constitution” is completely irrelevant. They are legally bound whether they like it or not.

    It is odd that those who claim to be “originalists” when it comes to the Constitution would be latching on to something like this. The language and the concept are – unlike many things in the Constitution – unambiguous. It is obvious why people such as yourself are sharing this “analysis.” To excuse the behavior of those “Trump-supporting conservatives” violently “levying War on the United States with their violent attack on Congress.

    It is not likely that the charge will be Treason or that they will be put to death. We are not barbarians. But that does not mean that it was not committed.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. RE: “Actually, the argument is that the Constitution IS a contract and is therefore not ‘morally’ binding on those who are not party to it.”

      Did you read the article? Here is the pertinent quote: “Terms like ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’ perpetuate the myth that Americans owe something to the regime, or that the regime’s coercive monopoly is somehow based on a free and voluntary agreement — an imaginary ‘social contract’ — between the regime and those who live under it.”

      The point of the article is that there is no “contract” to be a party to. Put another way, the Capitol protestors may well be guilty of crimes (as defined by the state and enforced by brute power), but they are not guilty of a contract violation.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Yes, yes, yes. Another Libertarian’s trope that goes against the principle of the actual Constitution/ It’s not a contract … unless it is convenient to our policies positions. Then it is binding and the founders said what the founders said and NOTHING can change that.

        Sadly hypocritical to the Libertarians by the author. Not surprising.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. The distinction is significant to those who value freedom. It illustrates that government has only derivative, not absolute authority.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Of course the government has only derivative and not absolute authority. That is the whole idea. Duh! But, as a practical and legal matter, you don’t get to opt out and even less to levy War.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. The argument is that the Constitution is not a contract. Opting out or levying war are not the issue.

            Like

      3. I know how you love a pointless quibble so I will point out that the idea we owe something to the government is a “myth” is because the Constitution IS a contract which we living people are not party to. But, whatever. It does not really matter. It IS the law and people who levy War against the United States are committing the REAL crime of treason.

        The article is garbage. The more one reads it the worse it gets. These “Trump-supporting conservatives” may not have a “moral” obligation to the United States because they are not party to any contract voluntarily entered into. But if that is the case what business is it of theirs who leads the government that they do not recognize or accept? Answer : None.

        And just how does the violence which THEY initiated lead to this very silly idea . . . “So, we can conclude that the Capitol riot was not treason, and theoretically, at least, it was potentially an act of self-defense.”

        An act of self-defense?!!! Good grief. Calling this essay “garbage” is extremely generous.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. RE: “And just how does the violence which THEY initiated lead to this very silly idea . . . ‘So, we can conclude that the Capitol riot was not treason, and theoretically, at least, it was potentially an act of self-defense.'”

          I don’t find the idea silly at all. Self-defense is a natural right.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “I don’t find the idea silly at all. Self-defense is a natural right.”

            Then you are a very silly fellow indeed. Accepting that “self-defense” is a natural right, initiating violence against other people who are not attacking you is NOT “self-defense.” Maybe if you think about it some, you will agree. But based on past experience, probably not.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Self defense is a natural right. Claiming it in the argument to support the seditious ideas of the rabble who stormed the Capitol on 1/6 is disgusting.

            If you don’t like it here, then you can leave.

            Like

          3. By your logic, we should live under tyranny because the violence needed to throw it off doesn’t count as legitimate self-defense.

            Like

          6. RE: “Look up the definition of sedition and insurrection and read them a few thousand times (or until you understand their meanings)…”

            I have looked them up. Neither applies to the Capitol protest. Trespassing, vandalism and murder (or manslaughter) might, but not sedition and insurrection. That’s just overblown rhetoric.

            Like

          7. …”but not sedition and insurrection.”

            Conveniently you stepped away from “treason” which is what the thread is about. Sedition and insurrection are accurate descriptions of what occurred that day.

            You want it both ways, but you can’t.

            Like

          9. It is increasingly evident that many of the perpetrators of the attack on Congress on January 6th have committed the serious crime of “seditious conspiracy” as defined in 18 USC §2384.

            “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

            Read it with understanding if you can.

            Some poor black man sells cigarettes illegally and you are okay with the police using deadly force against him because, after all, the law is the law. But here we have obvious crimes infinitely more serious and you want to claim possible “self-defense? Good grief!

            But, hey, it is still a free country. At least until January 20th. So keep digging. Show us all just how your minds work.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. RE: “It is increasingly evident that many of the perpetrators of the attack on Congress on January 6th have committed the serious crime of “seditious conspiracy” as defined in 18 USC §2384.”

            LIke I said, overblown rhetoric.

            Like

          11. “Like I said, overblown rhetoric.”

            Yes indeed, you did say that. But now that you can read for yourself the law in question and still want to say that this is “overblown rhetoric” only says that you are unwilling to participate in this discussion in an adult manner. Closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet is how children deal with facts they find uncomfortable.

            The known facts show the clear applicability of this law. The federal prosecutor said as much in his presentation the other day. Let’s review . . .

            1. Two or more people planning this violence? ✔
            2. State or territory? ✔
            3. Planning to levy war? ✔
            4. Planning to oppose by force the authority ? ✔
            5. Planning by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States ✔
            6. Planning by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States. ✔

            Any one of point 3,4,5, or 6 is enough for there to be seditious conspiracy. The planning for this assault on Congress ticks them all. ANYBODY who took part in this conspiracy whether or not they went into the Capitol themselves is guilty of this crime. They should be punished severely. Especially when so many deaths and injuries were the direct result of their conspiracy.

            Liked by 3 people

      4. ” “Terms like ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’ perpetuate the myth that Americans owe something to the regime”…

        The author is the first one I have seen using those words. Sedition and insurrection are accurate.

        Like

        Reply

  3. Perhaps. But sedition is a better word to describe the events of Jan 6. I would also consider “usurpation of power’, but that is not a legal charge like “abuse of power”. And the author doesn’t go anywhere near those.

    It read as a refutation of the Constitution, which most Libertarians cling to to defend their stances and policies. Which seems confusing. Unless you look at it as a defense of what occurred 8 days ago. Then it is dangerous.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment