And the thing is, the fact that it might not fall within the language of the Treason Clause doesn't really matter
On a large enough scale, this sort of thing just ruptures the social contract and sends us into a state of war
(Also like, J6 WAS treason within the meaning of the Constitution...)
The founders would have understood it as treason, and would resort to war against someone who attempted it, and punish it with hanging. Other countries would prosecute it as treason. That is what it is. Folks should be clear eyed on it.
I'm increasingly of the view that it /does/ fall within the language of the Treason Clause anyway. I think the folks arguing it doesn't are misreading what "levying war" meant at the time
IOW, I think the better view is the Treason Clause is a /limitation/ of the multiple treasons to exclude certain forms, but the "levying war" part I think is to incorporate Blackstone's third meaning (i.e. it is treason if a person (a) actually takes up arms (b) to remove or compel the government)
I was pretty sceptical that there was a serious case to make for it with respect to people in the WH until the Eastman memos came out. After it? I mean, I totally get why they didn't charge it. I still think it meets the basic constitutional standard for treason.
I think a lot of the "it's not treason" stuff comes from a combination of the Treason Clause's "enemies" and the two witnesses requirement, that over time meant we just use statutes (like Espionage Act, Insurrection Act, or Seditious Conspiracy statutes) that just short-circuit it
At some point if you refuse to use the constitutional tools in place, you take on culpability.
Pelosi, Willis, Garland & team have been entirely too cute by a half measures for political points and officially share responsibility for not doing their jobs appropriately.
You're assuming the use of force/violence, right? Or do you think that solely the fraudulent electors + Congressional objections (w/o the riot) would have been constitutional treason as well? (Leaving aside the practical problems of prosecuting successful coups...)
Aaron Burr, a founder tried by the founders, wasn’t charged with treason, when he attempted to wage war on the United States.
The treason clause very specifically does not apply to rebelling against the head of state, and on Jan 6 it was Trump,, and Blackstone says it doesn’t apply to civil war.
Hmmm, does this cover situations where you haven't raised an army, though? Or do you think the "legalistic" shenanigans counted as that for these purposes?
(Using Blackstone to interpret the American Treason Clause is obviously tricky, as you well know)
Yes; it's not necessary to formally raise an army, but it is necessary to take concrete steps to attempt or actually resort to violence /and also/ that the aim overtly be to remove the government or compel it (otherwise it is not a treason, but a riot)
It's very much afield of the main point, but is there a legal sense to "brothels" here other than the conventional definition?
It just seems an oddly specific example to reference in this particular context.
It's a justification of the Bawdy House Riots of 1668' leaders being charged with high treason (the rebellion was large, and had multiple aims, including "tearing down the Great Bawdy House at Westminster” meaning Parliament)
