Treason, in the US Constitution, is narrowly defined.
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.
Criticizing the President, or any government action or official, is not treason. The Constitution forbids charging lèse-majesté as treason; not only may a cat look at the king, the cat may snarl at the king. This is a wise rule; it prevents a President from charging anyone who criticizes them as traitor, something the Founders were all too familiar with from English history. But there is another kind of betrayal, that of principle. Over time, the Supreme Court has come to be seen as the guardian of the principles of the Constitution and two of those founding principles are:
- Secular government
- No kings, no aristocracy
The Roberts Court, in its support for religious law1 and monarchical presidential power2 has betrayed both of these principles.
The constitution has this to say about impeachment:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.3
Hamilton wrote in Federalist 654:
those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
The betrayals of the Roberts Court are high crimes, meriting impeachment.
See for instance Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. A statistical overview is provided in The Roberts Court and the Transformation of Constitutional Protections for Religion, summarized in the New York Times article An Extraordinary Winning Streak for Religion at the Supreme Court ↩︎
John Roberts. Trump v. United States, No. 23-939 (US Supreme Court July 1, 2024). ↩︎
Judicial Impeachments | Constitution Annotated | Congress.Gov | Library of Congress.” Accessed October 7, 2024. ↩︎
Alexander Hamilton. “Federalist No 65: The Powers of the Senate Continued.” Accessed October 7, 2024. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp. ↩︎
". . . not only may a cat look at the king, the cat may snarl at the king." The cat believes it IS the king.
ReplyDeleteWill Bunch (???) says expanding SCROTUS to 13 justices is "packing the court". The court is already packed, this would be unpacking it. There are 13 Federal Courts of Appeal, so why not 13 Supreme Court Justices? With term limits. And approved by the American Bar Association(??) not Leonard Leo's Federalist Society. Please clue me in as I am way over my head here.