Why Attacking the Constitution is Treason - A Brief Analysis of the Treason ClauseSubmitted by Sue4theBillofrights on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 01:32
This posted on behalf of long-time and respected poster James_Madison_Lives who has been banned from posting by Johnsonite mods with no reason given...more info here
Opponents of using the word "treasonous" or "traitors" for those attempting to overturn the US Constitution often cite the Treason Clause as support:
"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."
But Clause 8 of Article 2, together with the Treason Clause, make it clear that an attack on the Constitution is to be considered an attack on the United States:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - Article 2, US Constitution
Isn't attempting to overturn "the Supreme law of the Land," the United States Constitution, "levying war against them?" Why require an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and the Constitution only, if the Constitution is not to be considered part of the United States, and judging by the wording of the oath, the most important part? You only "defend," by definition, against an enemy.
Enemies of the Constitution are therefore enemies of the United States, and are "levying war."