So we’re just sneering now? That wasn’t a legitimate response but a nasty attempt to be dismissive?
The idea of war has broadened but by any definition of war we are not at war with Russia. And its a bit dishonest to argue for further expansion of the definition of war by complaining about the expansion of the concept of war.
Is ridiculously recent. Like from the 2nd half of the 20th century recent.
The current interpretation of our Treason statutes has existed since its inception and continues to be validated, and its pretty universally agreed upon. And a limited treason statute is a good idea.
Let’s say, just for example’s sake, that you’ve got yourself a facsistic minded president. And his party controls both houses of congress, much of the judiciary, and a hell of a lot of the states. And they’re pretty loath to check his power at all. Cause you know he’s their guy.
This is really hard to imagine I know. But bear with me. Now this president has explicitly tied himself to a particular foreign government. As “best friends”. Lets say Russia. Just for shits.
Now lets say you’re a member of the opposing party. And your background is in foreign policy. And you’ve got some connections with a group this president has labeled “an enemy”. Just for funsies we’ll go with the EU.
And lets say you’re deeply concerned about Russia’s Annexation of Crimea. So maybe you say some shit that’s supportive of the Ukrainian government, agreeing with most heads of state in the evil EU, and critical of the presidents connections with Russia.
You just committed treason bro.
Or maybe you’re the mayor of a very large American city. With a big Irish population. Lets just say New York. And you stand in support of Ireland’s PM as he gives a speech that’s critical of the President’s immigration policy.
Eh, yeah. You probably treasoned it up a bit.
We’ve got other easier to prove, more specific, and more appropriate ways to charge the behavior of the whole Trump scene. Unless you think its, in some magic way, practical to either amend the constitution. Or establish in court a whole new interpretation of treason statutes as a way to get Trump out of power.
We haven’t had a formal, old school declaration of War since WWII. But most of our wars and military conflicts since have been authorized by congress in other ways.
Others are sort of blanket authorized under a law we passed after Vietnamn called the War Powers Resolution that established clearly to what extent and how POTUS can engage in War without explicit declarations or acts of congress.
The definition of “War” has expanded beyond the formal declaration process outlined in the constitution. But we still broadly speaking require legislative guidelines or action to be in a state of war. There’s still a formal legal definition of when we are and are not, technically, at war. And without that state our treason statutes don’t (and probably shouldn’t) apply.