Too Many Dare Call It Treason

How would Jerry Seinfeld put it?  "What's the deal with treason?!"  Why is that the go-to charge to throw against political opponents.

It seems to be a favorite of Chris Matthews.  During the Obama administration he would frequently inflate Republican or conservative (they're not synonyms) actions to the level of treason.  But this particular vice is not limited to the left.  Today I came across this meme on Facebook:



Someone is distraught at Michael Flynn's downfall and looking for someone to blame.  In their search they have abandoned logic, reason and basic Constitutional principles.

Set aside the dubious assertion that the two most senior intelligence officials in the country would be reviewing intercepts of foreign intelligence targets alone, with no technicians and analysts to assist them.  The propagator of this meme goes right to the T word.

The temptation to dispose of one's political opponents with a treason charge has an ancient pedigree.  In England it was typically used to remove those who had fallen out of favor with the monarch.  The definition of treason could be rather flexible and the penalty was invariably severe.  Thomas Cromwell went to the block in 1540 essentially because he had engineered Henry VIII's unsuccessful, and short, marriage to Anne of Cleves.

The history of mischief occasioned by the overuse of the treason charge convinced the Constitutional Convention to circumscribe its application.  Treason gets not only its definition from the Constitution, but its rules of evidence as well.

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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 James Madison, writing in Federalist 43, argued that the federal government's power to punish treason must be limited due the "new-fangled and artificial treasons ... the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other..."

Of course, just bringing the word treason into a political argument does no actual harm.  So why do I bother complaining?  Four reasons:

1.  It's immature; a cheap insult that makes the speaker feel virtuous and, occasionally, tough.

2.  It betrays an ignorance of the Constitution and the historical wrongs the framers were attempting to prevent in this country.

3. It's disproportionate.  When you apply the term treason to political opposition, what do you have left to describe people like John Walker Lindh or Anwar al-Awlaki?

4.  It's obsequious.  It elevates the president, a mere civil servant, to the status of a monarch.

So drop the treason talk.  It's very unbecoming.