Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Only if the lawyer also rewrites the Constitution, or at least the rule of grammar.  |
Need your expertize here. If this is so cut and dried on treason, why do we have split decisions on it based on Constitutional issues?
Reference the Burr, Cramer and Haupt cases. With the Haupt case being a really strange one as:
"...it was held that although the overt acts relied upon to support the charge of treason--defendant's harboring and sheltering in his home his son who was an enemy spy and saboteur, assisting him in purchasing an automobile, and in obtaining employment in a defense plant--were all acts which a father would naturally perform for a son, this fact did not necessarily relieve them of the treasonable purpose of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Speaking for the Court, Justice Jackson said: ''No matter whether young Haupt's mission was benign or traitorous, known or unknown to the defendant, these acts were aid and comfort to him."
That is a pretty broad brush they painted with.