11 votes

Why Attacking the Constitution is Treason - A Brief Analysis of the Treason Clause

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

By James_Madison_Lives

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."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thanks for the post...

I don't have time to read the whole essay as the moment (so I may be missing something), but from what I have read of it, the basic argument seems to be that only those who make a contractual agreement to be bound by the law, are subject to said law.

Silence Dogood IX

An absolute must-read when

An absolute must-read when you have more time. The context he provides is very persuasive, and frankly I don't see how one can refute it without adopting the position that slavery is okay.

The counter-argument would be

The counter-argument would be that it isn't slavery, since you are free to not live by the law of the land. There are just consequences for doing so.

Anyone who chooses to become a citizen is agreeing to live by the laws. Anyone who is born into citizenship has the freedom to give up that citizenship....I guess you could sue your parents for forcing US citizenship upon you....

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

"The counter-argument would

"The counter-argument would be that it isn't slavery, since you are free to not live by the law of the land. There are just consequences for doing so."

If I'm jailed for smoking marijuana in public, I'm not free to smoke marijuana in public, and now I'm in jail. How is that freedom?

Put another way, you're saying that plantation slaves were free because they could choose not to pick cotton? I'm not sure they would have been comforted by this twisted logic.

But that's because you're focused on "the law of the land", which is precisely the problem. Spooner's argument is that this is illegitimate from the start, since there is no difference between the law of the land and a group of pirates banding together and calling themselves a government and assuming you should live under the rules they dictate (no matter how well intended). So if you're going to offer a counterargument, it should be that the law of the land is legitimate; not that you're free to disregard the laws.

In addition, I'd point out that the perspective you're offering effectively and necessarily crowds out the fundamental concept of freedom (as defined by natural law). By saying that I'm born into citizenship, and can opt out, what you're saying is people by default are property of nation-states. You're saying there's no such actual thing as freedom; there is only the illusion of freedom, which is tied to the extent that a nation-state allows it. After all, even the opting out part is subject to a nation-state's good graces, restrictions, and other whims.

....

....

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.
-Patrick Henry