My Cart

Close

GO. FIGHT. WIN.

Treason and Americans Found Guilty

Donate to Mad Dog

Posted on June 03 2018

Article Three

of the United States Constitution

Firstly Treason is the ONLY crime explained in particularity in our Constitution. That’s not an opinion that’s an actual fact, see Article III Section III, Clause I, which reads in part:

 

"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 “or” is important in both context and content. Many falsely assume treason is secular in “levying war”.  One thing to keep in mind is the etymology of the actual word: treason. Link to data & reference source can be found here.  See below:

treason (n.)

c. 1200, "betraying; betrayal of trust; breach of faith," from Anglo-French treson, from Old French traison "treason, treachery" (11c.; Modern French trahison), from Latin traditionem (nominative traditio) "delivery, surrender, a handing down, a giving up," noun of action from past participle stem of tradere "deliver, hand over," from trans- "over" (see trans-) + dare "to give" (from PIE root *do-"to give"). A doublet of tradition. The Old French form was influenced by the verb trair "betray."

 

And why you must read the exacting words in our Constitution regarding Treason, each word was carefully curated and thought out. Our founding fathers specifically used vernacular that could not be suseptible to ambiguity:

 

 In old English law, high treason is violation by a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or to the state; distinguished from petit treason, treason against a subject, such as murder of a master by his servant. Constructive treason was a judicial fiction whereby actions carried out without treasonable intent, but found to have the effect of treason, were punished as though they were treason itself. The protection against this accounts for the careful wording of the definition of treason in the U.S. Constitution.

 

 We ALL seem to forget when America was a collection of Colonies. Many of the laws that governed the Colonies were grounded in the Common Law of England. Which is why our founding fathers and those chartered to be the Framers of our Constitution declared a precise and permanent definition of treason. They went so far as to articulate the permissible means of proving treasons and the pragmatic  limitations regarding the punishment for Treason.

 

If you are a student of history and of the law, then you will understand that the Framers of the Constitution (and our Continental Congress) often reached back to the English Common Law. For example with respect to Treason, the Framers of our Constitution reached back to the Treason Act of 1351, more precisely: statute of 25 Edward III (1350) which reads in part:

“Declaration what Offences shall be adjudged Treason. Compassing the Death of the King, Queen, or their eldest Son; violating the Queen, or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or his eldest Son’s Wife; levying War; adhering to the King’s Enemies; killing the Chancellor, Treasurer, or Judges in Execution of their Duty.’

 

 

You can read the full UK Treason Act of 1351 via this UK Parilment National Archives, here.

Based on a closer examination of our Constitution, history shows that a lively debate among James Madison, John Dickinson and James Wilson occurred. Much of the debate was contemporaneously memorialized in James Madison's Notes of the Constitutional Convention (August 20, 1787), it’s a fascinating read, link found here

 

James Madison’s position was to;

‘limiting treason to the levying of war and adherence to enemies”

 

John Dickinson argued for a much narrower definition of treason. adding:

..”giving aid & comport" was unnecessary & improper...being too vague and extending too far...further the "testimony of two witnesses"...

whether they were to be witnesses to the same overt act or to different overt acts or proof of an overt-act ought to be expressed as essential in the case.”

 

James Wilson argued:

..treason requires generalized grievances and aims against the United States or its government as a whole, rather than particularized, essentially private grievances or aims.

 

 In 1791 James Wilson further explained his rationale, in his Lectures of Law Wilson stated the following, regarding Article 3, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2, Treason:

 

that if the crime of treason be indeterminate, this alone is sufficient to make any government degenerate into arbitrary power. In monarchies, and in republiks, it furnishes an opportunity to unprincipled courtiers, and to demagogues equally unprincipled, to harass the independent
citizen, and the faithful subject, by treasons, and by prosecutions for
treasons, constructive, capricious, and oppressive.

Treason consists in levying war against the United States." In order to understand this proposition accurately and in all its parts, it may be necessary to give a full and precise answer to all the following questions.

1. What is meant by the expression "levying war?"

2. By whom may the war be levied?

3. Against whom must it be levied?

 

You can read James Wilson’s 1791 Lecture on Laws, via this University of Chicago Publication, found here.

What is also overlooked is the Framers of the Constitution used careful language to allow concurrent State laws for treason against a state in their sovereign capacities by each State’s Constitution. Born by the fact that twenty-one states define treason by constitutional provision but contain no corresponding penalty for the offense. Seven states have zero language in their State Constitution or Law that note treason. As such the vast majority of our 50 states reiterate the language contained in our Constitution, conversely some states, like California added additional language, see California State Penal Code 37...found here.

 

Whereas the New York Penal Code, doesn’t cite treason, they use the terminology of: Criminal Anarchy found In New York Penal Code, Section 240.15, found, here

 

person is guilty of criminal anarchy when...

(a) he advocates the overthrowof the existing form of government of this state by violence, or

(b) withknowledge of its contents, he publishes, sells or distributes any documentwhich advocates such violent overthrow, or

(c) with knowledge of its purpose,he becomes a member of any organization which advocates such violent overthrow.

 

 

Many get hung up on the word treason, as a matter of law we are NOT at war with Russia. Notwithstanding there is a distinction that is constantly over looked. One could competently argue, based on facts, North Korea is our enemy and we are “still at war with them” Why? Because as a matter of law and incontrovertible fact the Korean War never ended. I’m certain others will say I am wrong in my assertion. My retort is go read:

 

THE KOREAN WAR ARMISTICE AGREEMENT

Panmunjom, Korea, July 27, 1953...

 You can read the full Armistice Agreement, via this link.

Even our on State Department acknowledges no peace treaty was ever signed, see State Departments North Korea page, found here.

armistice was concluded on July 27, 1953. A peace treaty has never been signed. North and South Korea have had a difficult and, at times, bitter relationship since the Korean War.

 

Now, if you turn on the Cable News, you will undoubtably hear pundits screaming treason or lack thereof. As explained above a solid argument can be made that the Korean War never ended, that’s a fact and not an opinion. A few weeks ago I noticed Trump was desperate to meet with North Korea. Concurrently some beltway chatter I heard over and over was: Trump’s legal team realized he was most vulnerable regarding treason because of North Korea. I don’t know the validity of that rumor and I’m not a fan of whataboutism. I like facts, like incontrovertible facts.

So here are a few facts:

  1. Donald Trump Jr received multiple emails with the subject line: The Russian Government has dirt on Clinton.
  2. Jr, Kushner and Manafort took that meeting. 
  3. None of them contacted law enforcement
  4. then Trump Sr, Jr the Press Secretary and Jay Sekulow lied about the meeting and subsequent “Statement”.

 

And Lordy...there are tapes and transcripts and tapes:

  

  • Cramer v. United States
  • United States v. Best
  • Haupt v. United States (Scotus 1947)
  • Chandler v. United States (1stCCOAs 1948)
  • Kawakita v. United States (SCOTUS 1942)

🇷🇺Trump is NOT above the LAW.🇷🇺

Full Stop

While you're here, throw us a bone.

Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.

Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.

DONATE