Economic Treason: The definition of "treason" and could Republicans be guilty of this crime (Part 2)

[dairydog91]

61. This borders on legal quackery.

Congressional members have extensive immunity under Article One, Section 6. Yes, they can do stuff that would be a crime anywhere else if they do it while they are legislating (See, for example, Mike Gravel entering reams of classified information into the Congressional Record).

Legislators aren't immune against charges of Treason, but that is a technical term under the Constitution. Specifically, it is "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". Those are used way, WAY more narrowly than you seem to think they are. Levying war is levying war; it's not going to apply until John Boehner signs a formal declaration of war against the United States or starts levying a rebel army. As for "aid and comfort", about the cases you'll find where the U.S. charged someone with treason involved the actual provision of services, weapons, or supplies to a country which the U.S. was at war with. Treason is not "John Boehner is using Congress's power of the purse to extract political concessions", it is "Rand Paul provided AK-47s to al Qaeda, shanked a pilot, and flew a plane into the Federal Reserve Building". Even defaulting is not treason; it's a choice by legislators to default.

This is not a grey area; bringing a treason case against a Congressman for voting or refusing to vote is spectacularly out of sync with the precedents. The only possible reason to try to bring this as a legal case is that you hope Antonin Scalia dies of a heart attack as all 9 Justices howl with laughter at the idea of bringing treason charges against a legislator for voting in a manner which you find disagreeable. Seriously, here's the legal principle you're advancing: A President can declare that members of Congress, by supporting an economic/fiscal policy he disagrees with, are committing treason and can hence be prosecuted as traitors. If Congress can be punished in such a manner for voting, it is basically worthless as an independent entity. The concept you're advocating, in practice, is basically a populist military dictatorship.

---

the hue and cry that would arise by the Republicans would accuse President Obama and his Attorney General of using the power of their offices to retaliate against their political opponents.

Considering that is what they would doing, it would seem like it would be an accurate charge on the Republicans' part.

---

Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do

Which is why this is not malfeasance. There is no such thing as a vote that a legislator does not have the legal right to make. They might pass a law which is unconstitutional, and the courts cannot enforce, but that doesn't mean that it is illegal for the legislature to vote that way. The legislature can vote to turn Wednesday into "Holocaust Appreciation Day", or vote to load the entire Social Security trust fund into a rocket and shoot it into the sun, or vote to create the Department of Twerking. By definition, the legislature makes the laws. The Constitution is the only bounds on Congressional power, and it does not obligate Congress to vote to borrow money.