On Treason and the Democrat Threat to the Best of the US Constitution

A few days ago on Twitter, somebody called me a “left-rightist". I asked WTF that was. Somebody else replied, “That’s a leftist who believes in the First Amendment.”

The insinuation of the oxymoronic phrase(which is literally Orwellian doublethink) is, of course, that one cannot really be a leftist if one believes every American citizen, even Donald Trump, is protected from certain actions on the part of the government by the Bill of Rights and the Lincoln Amendments.

I’m a Marxist, and unsurprisingly happen to believe that those rights don’t go anywhere near far enough, but they are among the best things Americans ever came up with. There is certainly no contradiction between being a leftist or anti-capitalist of any variety and strongly supporting every person’s constitutional rights in the United States.

At least, there never was until just about ten years ago. Then, President Obama said on national TV that Julian Assange and Edward Snowden were guilty of espionage and treason, respectively. At the time, my wife and I were shocked. Who the hell does he think he is, judge, jury and executioner? Or has he elevated himself to Emperor of the US Empire now?

The answer was pretty much Yes to both, and I lost friendships with Democrats because I defended Assange as a journalist and Snowden as a patriot. As one explained to me:

Look, I liked Assange when he showed up Bush for the war criminal he was, but then he made Obama look bad, and that pissed me off. Then he picked sides and published Hillary’s emails that he got from the Russians so Trump would win, so he can die in prison for all I care. And if you support him then you’re a traitor. (Emphasis his).

The clear meaning of this, for my now former friend and most liberals, is that if one supports anyone or anything that can help the Demon Trump, or anyone else they have deemed the current incarnation of Hitler, win an election, then one is an enemy of Truth, Justice, Democracy, and the American Way and is therefore a traitor.

The charge itself in unconstitutional. The US Constitution, not even the Bill of Rights but the original unamended document, defines treason thusly:

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.

What is an Enemy? Well, that’s defined in Title 50 of the United States Code:

Enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States.

Note the hostilities part. The Constitution was written in 1787. Back then, hostilities meant fighting. It meant warfare. It meant violence with physical weapons. By those well-defined American standards, was I engaged in hostilities with the United States by saying the American people had the right to know the contents of Hillary Clinton’s emails concerning how she wanted Trump to win the Republican nomination, and how her minions rigged the 2016 primary in her favor?

For that matter, when did Donald Trump ever engage in hostilities against the United States? According to the US Constitution and established federal law, he clearly never did. The fact that I say as much does not mean I politically support Donald Trump and am therefore a treacherous enemy of democracy. It means I support the Constitution of the United States and its amendments every time when it comes to a choice between it and any form of tyrannical authoritarianism, whether that authoritarianism is being advanced by an egotistical President or by a political party.

Levelling the charge of treason for opposing the policies of the current government or ruler is a tactic as old as rulers and governments themselves. It is a tactic that has been used to crush dissent since at least the time of the first cities in Mesopotamia and Egypt. That is why the writers of the United States Constitution defined the term so narrowly, so it could not be abused by a future American government.

Yet that is what is happening, and has been happening more flagrantly and frequently ever since George W. Bush made his declaration that “You are either with us or against us” back in 2001. Obama followed the same authoritarian path, Trump ripped all the masks off by saying the quiet part out loud too many times for the establishment’s comfort, and now partisan Democrats are casting all of their political opponents as traitors to America and probably secret Nazis besides.

The logical corollary to that way of thinking is that censorship of both information and opinions which contradict the narratives and policies of the United States government is necessary to defend the Republic from both internal and external threats, which is precisely what they are claiming.

Republics that need censorship of political, scientific and academic speech are not democratic republics, but they are frequently oligarchical ones. The 21st Century United States is no exception, but the ruling class does have a few persistent problems that will never just go away.

One of them is the United States Constitution itself.

Thank you for reading. Good day, and good luck.