> If the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law..." and Congress still makes a law, what are you going to do, throw Congress in jail? That's nonsense.
The only nonsense is that we haven't done exactly that. If someone in power betrays the public trust they should be punished. The punishment ought to be severe so there is no doubt about the stakes at play.
> That might actually be unconstitutional ex-post-facto punishment.
We have members of our government who have taken oaths to other nations, and that have then voted to provide those other nations with aid and support. Similarly, we have members of our government who provide legal sanctuary for those who defy the laws of the land. And, regardless of your political beliefs, both parties currently in power have voted overwhelmingly in favor of war over the past several decades.
> Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
If a senator woke up tomorrow and wanted to help a martian terror cell that nobody knew existed, they would still be assisting an enemy of the state. It would still be treason, and I doubt that interpretation would be a topic of debate.
There are also groups who openly consider us their enemy and take action to harm the United States, even if we don't 'officially' recognize them. Some of these groups are nation-states, others are religious groups, and others and driven by [0]other ideologies.
A communist wouldn't accept that installing communism in the US is "waging war against the US", and legal precedence in the US is that its legal to be a communist, so I'm not sure what you meant by that.
In fact, even supporting the Soviet Union would not be treason. Enemies, in this context, is very narrowly defined as an entity the US has declared war against.
À senator helping a Martian terror state, as long as they did not engage in violence against the US, wouldn't be convicted of treason.
It's not about communists, it's about groups that engage in specific behaviors such as economic warfare.
> 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.
> Enemies, in this context, is very narrowly defined as an entity the US has declared war against.
There has been so few cases that this interpretation isn't well-tested. Regardless, based on cases that do exist, this doesn't seem to be true.
There are exceptions to what you're saying such as John Brown who was executed for treason for attempting (failing) to incite a slave revolt. Also, cases such as Fries Rebellion exist where war was never declared as far as I am able to ascertain, but the leader was convicted of treason. And then there's the case of Mary Surratt who was connected to the Lincoln assassination and executed for treason.
I said that enemy was defined as someone that is at war with the US. John Brown attacked the US government, so it isn't treason under the section of aiding and abetting an enemy, but under war against the US. Same for the Fries Rebellion, same for Mary Surratt.
Economic warfare, whatever that means, against the US, is not illegal, and making it illegal is unconstitutional due to the strong protections for private property.
> [0] economic warfare may reflect economic policy followed as a part of open or covert operations, cyber operations, information operations during or preceding a war. Economic warfare aims to capture or otherwise to control the supply of critical economic resources so that the military and intelligence agencies can operate at full efficiency or deprive enemy forces of those resources so that they cannot function properly.
If you think people engaged in the above activities aren't engaged in a crime, then there's no point in carrying this discussion further.
> Economic warfare, whatever that means, against the US, is not illegal, and making it illegal is unconstitutional due to the strong protections for private property.
This is 100% incorrect, on every level. Taking intentional action to harm an economy is a direct threat on the security of a nation and would be an objectively justifiable Casus belli.
The only nonsense is that we haven't done exactly that. If someone in power betrays the public trust they should be punished. The punishment ought to be severe so there is no doubt about the stakes at play.
> That might actually be unconstitutional ex-post-facto punishment.
We have members of our government who have taken oaths to other nations, and that have then voted to provide those other nations with aid and support. Similarly, we have members of our government who provide legal sanctuary for those who defy the laws of the land. And, regardless of your political beliefs, both parties currently in power have voted overwhelmingly in favor of war over the past several decades.
> Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."