TexasCHLforum.com

67SS wrote: well we disagree.. to me adhering means joining your enemies.... Again to me aid and comfort means providing whats needed.. Cramer was the 2 witness clause.... and had nothing to do with aid or adhesion. the Curious thing about Cramer is that only one witness testified, Cramer testfied againgt himself.. was he not apprised of self inflection, pleading the 5th? ...

Another non sequitur - you can take whatever meaning you want and cling to old British law, but that doesn't change what the Constitution says. It's very curious that you would not know how to locate Madison's convention note - as a fan, no less.

It's also curious that you claim Cramer v. U.S. "had nothing to do with aid or adhesion" when Cramer had been indicted and charged (and convicted) with treason (by adhering to enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, in violation of § 1 of the Criminal Code). Cramer was in fact witnessed by FBI agents meeting with identified enemies. However, there wasn't sufficient evidence to support that Cramer had provided aid and comfort to the enemies with whom he was witnessed meeting on occasions. The conviction was reversed. Troll with someone else - I'm done with you.

67SS wrote:
OK read it your self... from legal dictionary.... each act is separate ...

The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.
...

these are not my opinions but legally defined by the legal dictionary... argue with them.

I don't have to argue with them. Why cite something like the online legal dictionary (which doesn't contradict in any way what I've stated)? What you've cut and pasted to reach your conclusion doesn't change the words and punctuation marks in the Constitution.

I will respectfully suggest that you spend some time looking a bit deeper than the online legal dictionary. The framers were very familiar the Edward III statutes in regards to treason, but they did want to live under the same British law (they had just separated themselves from the crown). The treason clause was discussed at the convention. Cramer v. United States (1945) is another source that addresses treason.

Had you cited Madison''s convention notes from August 20, 1787 and the discussions that resulted in the final Article III, section 3 wording, we could have seen how George Mason was responsible for adding the "giving them aid and comfort" restrictive condition to the "adhering to their enemies" wording (linking the two elements as "adhering to their enemies" would be otherwise too indefinite).

Andrew wrote:

67SS wrote:...snip...

so in the first part. 1 (this is definition)(1)Treason against the United States,
action :(2)shall consist only in levying War against them,
ACTION: (3)adhering to their Enemies,
action: (4)giving them Aid and Comfort.
so in the first section, you commit treason by 3 possible means: 1 levying War , 2 .adhering to their Enemies, and 3, giving them Aid and Comfort.

section 2
(definition No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless:
action: (1)on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act,
Action:(2) or on Confession in open Court.

each number after each definition is a act to which treason is applied... not the sum of its total...but each act is a treasonous offence. they do not have to be in conjugation, but are separate descriptions.

So, when was the trial? There must be due process. Even if all of your assertions are true, there must be a trial, even in absentia, with sworn witnesses, before Congress. The Executive branch cannot assume the powers specifically granted to the Congress and attaint a citizen of these U.S. as a traitor.

They are not correct. The actions listed out by 67SS are flawed. The Constitution states: "...,or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." These are not two unlinked acts, as stated by 67SS. They are connected. Mens rea and actus reus, if you will. You could give aid and comfort to enemies under duress or unknowingly. Giving aid and comfort would not consist of treason unless you did so "in adhering to" the enemies of the United States (need the intent).

67SS wrote:
OK each one is a act considered treason. ok?

non sequitur - okay? I was referring to how you chopped the standard for conviction.

I'm not going to dissect the other details of you post, except to say the word "or" and the use of commas are important.

67SS wrote:you had better read what you just quoted..

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.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies

Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act


...

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking him to read. The way you've chopped the last part of Article III, section 3...it's like you're changing and twisting the presumption in a way that makes no sense. So, we have treason unless two witnesses (to an overt act of levying war or providing aid & comfort to enemies) say it was somebody else...?

The bar is a wee bit higher than that.