Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: TREASON. I think the GOP'ers relentlessly persecuting Obama are now guilty of it. [View all]longship
(40,416 posts)7. Treason is defined in law in the Constitution, Article III.
Last edited Tue May 21, 2013, 04:57 AM - Edit history (1)
Here it is:
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. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Of course, the charge of treason has been historically used to subjugate political opponents which is precisely why the founders saw fit to explicitly define it in the Constitution so that it cannot be used as a political weapon.
Calling political opponents treasonous is always the cheap way out. Instead of explaining why their policies are wrong, some label them with "treason". Fortunately our founders anticipated that and took the trouble to actually define the word legally so that shenanigans like this, whether from the left or the right, don't have to be taken seriously.
If a person has an argument against a policy, it can and should be presented with a cogent argument. But just like I would malign the right wing screaming treason about Obama, I have to call this out.
Treason means a very specific thing in the USA. Using the word as a political tool is, at best, hyperbole.
I am very uncomfortable with these charges coming from professed Democrats.
Does anybody here think that putting the word in all caps makes the argument more compelling?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
62 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
TREASON. I think the GOP'ers relentlessly persecuting Obama are now guilty of it. [View all]
calimary
May 2013
OP
Congressional Democrats and Democratic strategists should be pushing this truth
BlueCaliDem
May 2013
#33
It's disturbing how closely your argument mirrors the neo-cons of the previous administration.
Gravitycollapse
May 2013
#5
Ah, the old false-equivalency thing again. Not relevant here. Not by a long shot.
calimary
May 2013
#6
Obstructionism is not treason. It just isn't. So by calling them treasonous...
Gravitycollapse
May 2013
#8
It is during wartime. You know, that period where the Constitution really doesn't count by design?
nebenaube
May 2013
#57
That is my thought. It can be argued that the Republicans are giving aid and comfort to the
JDPriestly
May 2013
#13
It's disturbing how you're on a Democratic Party supporting site and appear against the OP's
BlueCaliDem
May 2013
#34
Why did you pick me to reply to?Especially as 40 other replies said the same thing.
graham4anything
May 2013
#26
in the flow of this thread, yours is the first to outright say it, so I replied...
SQUEE
May 2013
#28
Their behavior is definitely anti-American and unpatriotic. I get that people have differing views
spicegal
May 2013
#17
I think the obstructing R's in congress and in fact at all levels of government have been
geckosfeet
May 2013
#19
Welcome to DU, Pragdem! I'm very appreciative of all the comments, both pro and con.
calimary
May 2013
#55
This is a bad idea that can't even survive its own standard for a mere 55 posts.
Nuclear Unicorn
May 2013
#60
The stragest aspect to me is that people don't understand one of our basic principles of law
Nimajneb Nilknarf
May 2013
#62