▲ 557 ▼ Trump and His Lawyers Dare NY Judge to Throw Him in Jail (www.rollingstone.com) submitted 2 years ago by TheJims@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world 101 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] TangledHyphae@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Isn't being a traitor to the US (RICO case + stolen documents + Jan 6th insurrection) against the constitution though? This Chicago Tribune article goes into more detail. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Treason is defined in the cotus, and none of the three things you posted would rise to the level of treason. The article even talks about it. Neither the Rico charges nor the classified documents, even with a conviction, would bar him from the presidency, but the jab 6th could make him ineligible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Also, giving the documents to foreign officials would probably be as well, but not just having them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Don't get me wrong, it should be disqualifying for any potential voter. . . but unless I'm missing something, this is certainly not treason and I don't know how it would disqualifying some other way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: 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. It would be giving aid to an enemy surely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* The Treason Clause refers to “enemies,” not foreign nations generally. And “enemy” has been the subject of over six hundred years of consistent judicial interpretation (the phrase goes back to the English Statute of Treasons of 1351). For a foreign nation to be an enemy, we must be in a state of declared or open war with that nation. As we are not in declared or open war with Russia, it doesn't fall under the definition of treason. If "an adversary" would rise to the level of "enemy" then that would allow the state to broadly interpret the law to encompass plenty of actions as treason, as "aid and comfort" is so vague. And this is the opposite of the intent of the founding fathers, as they specifically define it to both show how important it is and to stop the abuse of it by the state, which they had seen plenty of times. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Treason is defined in the cotus, and none of the three things you posted would rise to the level of treason. The article even talks about it. Neither the Rico charges nor the classified documents, even with a conviction, would bar him from the presidency, but the jab 6th could make him ineligible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Also, giving the documents to foreign officials would probably be as well, but not just having them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Don't get me wrong, it should be disqualifying for any potential voter. . . but unless I'm missing something, this is certainly not treason and I don't know how it would disqualifying some other way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: 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. It would be giving aid to an enemy surely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* The Treason Clause refers to “enemies,” not foreign nations generally. And “enemy” has been the subject of over six hundred years of consistent judicial interpretation (the phrase goes back to the English Statute of Treasons of 1351). For a foreign nation to be an enemy, we must be in a state of declared or open war with that nation. As we are not in declared or open war with Russia, it doesn't fall under the definition of treason. If "an adversary" would rise to the level of "enemy" then that would allow the state to broadly interpret the law to encompass plenty of actions as treason, as "aid and comfort" is so vague. And this is the opposite of the intent of the founding fathers, as they specifically define it to both show how important it is and to stop the abuse of it by the state, which they had seen plenty of times. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Also, giving the documents to foreign officials would probably be as well, but not just having them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Don't get me wrong, it should be disqualifying for any potential voter. . . but unless I'm missing something, this is certainly not treason and I don't know how it would disqualifying some other way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: 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. It would be giving aid to an enemy surely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* The Treason Clause refers to “enemies,” not foreign nations generally. And “enemy” has been the subject of over six hundred years of consistent judicial interpretation (the phrase goes back to the English Statute of Treasons of 1351). For a foreign nation to be an enemy, we must be in a state of declared or open war with that nation. As we are not in declared or open war with Russia, it doesn't fall under the definition of treason. If "an adversary" would rise to the level of "enemy" then that would allow the state to broadly interpret the law to encompass plenty of actions as treason, as "aid and comfort" is so vague. And this is the opposite of the intent of the founding fathers, as they specifically define it to both show how important it is and to stop the abuse of it by the state, which they had seen plenty of times. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Don't get me wrong, it should be disqualifying for any potential voter. . . but unless I'm missing something, this is certainly not treason and I don't know how it would disqualifying some other way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: 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. It would be giving aid to an enemy surely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* The Treason Clause refers to “enemies,” not foreign nations generally. And “enemy” has been the subject of over six hundred years of consistent judicial interpretation (the phrase goes back to the English Statute of Treasons of 1351). For a foreign nation to be an enemy, we must be in a state of declared or open war with that nation. As we are not in declared or open war with Russia, it doesn't fall under the definition of treason. If "an adversary" would rise to the level of "enemy" then that would allow the state to broadly interpret the law to encompass plenty of actions as treason, as "aid and comfort" is so vague. And this is the opposite of the intent of the founding fathers, as they specifically define it to both show how important it is and to stop the abuse of it by the state, which they had seen plenty of times. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: 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. It would be giving aid to an enemy surely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* The Treason Clause refers to “enemies,” not foreign nations generally. And “enemy” has been the subject of over six hundred years of consistent judicial interpretation (the phrase goes back to the English Statute of Treasons of 1351). For a foreign nation to be an enemy, we must be in a state of declared or open war with that nation. As we are not in declared or open war with Russia, it doesn't fall under the definition of treason. If "an adversary" would rise to the level of "enemy" then that would allow the state to broadly interpret the law to encompass plenty of actions as treason, as "aid and comfort" is so vague. And this is the opposite of the intent of the founding fathers, as they specifically define it to both show how important it is and to stop the abuse of it by the state, which they had seen plenty of times. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* The Treason Clause refers to “enemies,” not foreign nations generally. And “enemy” has been the subject of over six hundred years of consistent judicial interpretation (the phrase goes back to the English Statute of Treasons of 1351). For a foreign nation to be an enemy, we must be in a state of declared or open war with that nation. As we are not in declared or open war with Russia, it doesn't fall under the definition of treason. If "an adversary" would rise to the level of "enemy" then that would allow the state to broadly interpret the law to encompass plenty of actions as treason, as "aid and comfort" is so vague. And this is the opposite of the intent of the founding fathers, as they specifically define it to both show how important it is and to stop the abuse of it by the state, which they had seen plenty of times. permalink fedilink source parent