Dear History members: In February, 2010, History boards will begin the process of upgrading our community message board software. We are moving to a new community software, KickApps, that will provide greater functionality and ease of use. This transition will take place during the last part of February; the last day that the current boards will be available to you will be Feb. 28, 2010. We realize that many of you have posted great content over the years and might want to save your posts. Please take this time to go back through the boards and save what you want to keep on your own computer. These boards will no longer be accessible after February 28, 2010. If you would like to ask a question about the new boards, click here: http://boards.history.com/forum/Message-Boards-User/108 There will be more details to come as we roll out the new community software. Thank you for your continued patronage. We'll see you on the new, improved boards! Rebecca Cooper AETN Community Manager
|
Posts:
33,609
Registered:
2/13/04
|
|
(1 of 37)
ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 7:32 AM
|
Section 3. Treason
Clause 1. Definition and Limitations
Treason
The treason clause is a product of the awareness of the Framers of the ''numerous and dangerous excrescences'' which had disfigured the English law of treason and was therefore intended to put it beyond the power of Congress to ''extend the crime and punishment of treason.'' 1283 The debate in the Convention, remarks in the ratifying conventions, and contemporaneous public comment make clear that a restrictive concept of the crime was imposed and that ordinary partisan divisions within political society were not to be escalated by the stronger into capital charges of treason, as so often had happened in England. 1284
Thus, the Framers adopted two of the three formulations and the phraseology of the English Statute of Treason enacted in 1350, 1285 but they conspicuously omitted the phrase defining as treason the ''compass[ing] or imagin[ing] the death of our lord the King,'' 1286 under which most of the English law of ''constructive treason'' had been developed. 1287 Beyond limiting the power of Congress to define treason, 1288 the clause also prescribes limitations upon Congress' ability to make proof of the offense easy to establish 1289 and its ability to define punishment. 1290
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html
"To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
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.
However, Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses which undermine the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.
The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition and permits Congress to create the offense. The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695.
In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. Several men were convicted of treason in connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were pardoned by President George Washington. One of American history's most notorious traitors, in which his name is considered synonymous with the definition of traitor, is Benedict Arnold. The most famous treason trial, that of Aaron Burr in 1807 (See Burr conspiracy), resulted in acquittal. Politically motivated attempts to convict opponents of the Jeffersonian Embargo Acts and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 all failed. Most states have provisions in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. There have been only two successful prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island and that of John Brown in Virginia.
After the American Civil War, no person involved with the Confederate States of America was tried for treason, though a number of leading Confederates (including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee) were indicted. Those who had been indicted received a blanket amnesty issued by President Andrew Johnson as he left office in 1869."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,365
From:
Virginia/Maryland
Registered:
12/10/07
|
|
(2 of 37)
Re: ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 8:33 AM
|
Sure proves that secession was legal.
--
1st Regiment of Virginia Volunteer Infantry
Fighting terrorism since 1861
|
|
|
Posts:
1,365
From:
Virginia/Maryland
Registered:
12/10/07
|
|
(3 of 37)
Re: ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 8:34 AM
|
Sure proves that secession was legal. Since no Southerner was ever found guilty of treason.
--
1st Regiment of Virginia Volunteer Infantry
Fighting terrorism since 1861
|
|
|
Posts:
33,609
Registered:
2/13/04
|
|
(4 of 37)
Re: ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 8:36 AM
|
> Sure proves that secession was legal.
Please quote exactly what in the articles posted "proves" that Secession was legal. In fact, please quote where Secession was even so much as mentioned.
|
|
|
Posts:
33,609
Registered:
2/13/04
|
|
(5 of 37)
Re: ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 8:37 AM
|
> Sure proves that secession was legal. Since no
> Southerner was ever found guilty of treason.
Treason and Secession are two different things. Secession is not even MENTIONED in this.
And amnesty does NOT mean that someone is not guilty.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,365
From:
Virginia/Maryland
Registered:
12/10/07
|
|
(6 of 37)
Re: ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 8:38 AM
|
None of the Confederates arrested and charged with treason in the witch hunt following the war, were found guilty.
--
1st Regiment of Virginia Volunteer Infantry
Fighting terrorism since 1861
|
|
|
Posts:
33,609
Registered:
2/13/04
|
|
(7 of 37)
Re: ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 8:40 AM
|
> None of the Confederates arrested and charged with
> treason in the witch hunt following the war, were
> found guilty.
They were never tried in the first place. They were given amnesty.
And please quote where Secession is proven to be legal.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,365
From:
Virginia/Maryland
Registered:
12/10/07
|
|
(8 of 37)
Re: ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 8:46 AM
|
Why did the Union arrest Confederate leaders and charge them with treason? Were they ignorant of the law, or just desperate, or both?
--
1st Regiment of Virginia Volunteer Infantry
Fighting terrorism since 1861
|
|
|
Posts:
33,609
Registered:
2/13/04
|
|
(9 of 37)
Re: ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 8:49 AM
|
> Why did the Union arrest Confederate leaders and
> charge them with treason? Were they ignorant of the
> law, or just desperate, or both?
it cracks me up to listen to people who whine incessently about U.S. law and leaders and witch hunts suddenly turn around and try to rely on that very same law as a justification for their beliefs.
Please show me where, in the articles I posted, Secession was even mentioned, let alone declared legal.
Oh, and in most countries, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee would have been summarily executed.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,262
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(10 of 37)
Re: ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 8:56 AM
|
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only
> in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
> Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
This only applies to citizens of the United States, which clearly excluded citizens of seceded states.
Once again, a single fact spoils a most un-interesting argument.
--
"Sovereign states may unite themselves together by a perpetual federal republic: this will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. Meanwhile a state that has passed under the dominion of another, can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations; such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire."
--Vattel
|
|
|
Posts:
1,365
From:
Virginia/Maryland
Registered:
12/10/07
|
|
(11 of 37)
Re: ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 8:57 AM
|
There is already a post where no one can prove secession was illegal.
You keep repeating yourself warrior.
--
1st Regiment of Virginia Volunteer Infantry
Fighting terrorism since 1861
|
|
|
Posts:
33,609
Registered:
2/13/04
|
|
(12 of 37)
Re: ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 9:03 AM
|
> There is already a post where no one can prove
> secession was illegal.
Which has nothing to do with this post whatsoever, except for your comments that my post proves Secession was legal.
It does not.
And I repeat myself becuase you keep ignoring my question:
PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE THIS POST PROVES THAT SECESSION WAS LEGAL.
Texas v Whlte proves Secession was not legal accordng to the United States Supreme Court:
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5?3 decision that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
But what fascinates me is all the attempts to try to prove otherwise, when it is completely obvious that this would not even be a subject of discussion if the Confederacy had won the Civil War.
Would it?
That would be like the Founding Fathers being concerned with the legality of the Declaration of Independance under British law after winning the American Revolution.
The South lost.
Secesssion was ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court.
And that's game, set and match.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,365
From:
Virginia/Maryland
Registered:
12/10/07
|
|
(13 of 37)
Re: ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 9:13 AM
|
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
This law, which is suspect ,was made after the Civil War.
Texas v. White is totally irrelevant for Civil War discussions.
--
1st Regiment of Virginia Volunteer Infantry
Fighting terrorism since 1861
|
|
|
Posts:
4,262
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(14 of 37)
Re: ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 9:18 AM
|
> Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
>
> This law, which is suspect ,was made after the Civil
> War.
*sigh*
Ok, one last time:
the Supreme Court does not have the power to determine international policy, except as it applies to cases that come before the court.
This "law" (i.e. court opinion) thus only applies to cases that come before it involving US citizens. It can't declare a nation sovereign or non-sovereign for policy-reasons-- just case-law precedent. The court is not a global illuminati!
|
|
|
Posts:
33,609
Registered:
2/13/04
|
|
(15 of 37)
Re: ON TREASON: U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE III.
Sep 23, 2008 9:20 AM
|
> Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
>
> This law, which is suspect ,was made after the Civil
> War.
Wrong.
No law was made.
And if Texas v White is "irrelevent", then so is the entire legal system of the United States, over whcih the Supreme Court presides.
The Supreme Court RULED on the question of Secession after the Civil War.
The Supreme Court ALWAYS rules on things AFTER THE FACT.
But they were ruling on Secession, the only case of which was the Confederacy, and the ruling specifically ADDRESSES the Confederacy's secession BEFORE the war.
I've already addressed the issue vis a vis the Declaration of independance, The Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution elsewhere before.
NOTHING in ANY of those documents authorizes ANYBODY to walk away with a third of the territory and half the population of the United States.
IF CONGRESS, ALL OF IT, had voted on and approved Secession, you might have a case.
They did not.
And why are the supporters of the states that wanted to LEAVE the United States concerned with it's laws regarding the subject, ANYWAY?
And firing on a U.S. military installation, aka Ft Sumter, is either an Act of Rebellion, if you take the Confederate States to still have been part of the United States, as I do, or an ACT OF WAR, if you take them to be a seperate country, as you do.
Take your choice.
The point is moot. The Confederacy LOST.
Game, set, and match.
|
|
|
|
|
