Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: 'There is no other word for it:' Former Bush ethics czar says FBI uncovering evidence of treason [View all]ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)The excerpt below quotes a Supreme Court decision seeming to indicate "levying of war" (and hence treason) might include something akin to conspiracy. Depending on how you interpret "an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose" -- suppose that might mean something more like a militia, rather than just a roomful of conspirators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason
. . .
In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."
Now, I'm curious what you think about the 2 witnesses requirement: that, apart from confession, you'd need two witnesses to each overt act?
U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 3.
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.
Also from the same link previously quoted:
In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that " e)very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses." 17) In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).