On any given day, I grade myself on a sliding scale from Harry Chapin's "Cat's in the Cradle" to Dan Fogelberg's "Leader of the Band."
I hope I am in the Fogleberg Quartile more than the Chapin, but as long as I am above the Median, I guess I am ok. :)
Been trying to understand the original 14th Amendment Citizenship debate from a primary source (Congressional Globe). Came across this exchange in the 39th Congresss (May of 1866) during the debate as to the extent Southern insurrectionistswould be prevented from holding office (Section 3 of the 14th Amendment).
I assume tensions are running high. Senator Trumbull (Republican from Illinois) takes Senator Doolittle (Democrat from Wisconsin) to task. Doolittle does not like it .
I sense Trumbull's retort (statement in Red, explanation highligted in Blue) to Doolittle has some resonance today.
 |
| Link to this debate HERE |
Treason is a word that has been used too loosely lately.
Here is what the Constitution says about it:
"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."
This article, "On Treason and Traitors," explains the historical meaning AND intent of the concept in language even I can understand.
""No American charged with treason has been convicted for conduct related to anything other than direct support of an enemy at war with the United States (for example, the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War, the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany in World War II). Thus, if the U.S. is not in an armed conflict with another belligerent party, it is factually and legally impossible to be guilty of treason. As Larson points out in this blog post about alleged collusion between Trump and Russia in his first term, “working with foreign countries to harm the United States is not part of the definition.”
Crimes, but Not Treason
In conclusion, the following acts are often the basis for claims of treason; they might be unlawful (violations of some other statute, like espionage) but are not “treasonous,” and the perpetrators are not “traitors” no matter how disloyal they may seem to the public or to the president:
- Careless leaking of classified, top-secret, war plans onto the internet or an unsecured messaging app (this is a possible crime, but not treason);
- A lawfully initiated investigation into a political leader’s “official” actions (this does not qualify as any crime);
- Being “un-American" (this is not definable, much less a crime);
- Expressing sympathy, or donating time and money, to the victims of an ally’s war effort (this is a form of protected speech); or
- Undermining American economic interests for the sake of another nation out of incompetence (not a crime) or corruption (possibly a crime, but not treason).
I have read a lot about the controversy around "Birthright Citizenship". Folks for and against it use quotes from the 1866 debates in Congress (House and Senate) to support their position. Seems you can find both sides in the debate.
Below are screenshots of the actual record of the debate in the Senate just before the vote to approve the language of the 14th Amendment. This document can be found HERE. The debate I am interested in starts on page 2890 of the document.
If you have read anything on the issue, as you read these 3 pages, you will recognize various quotes that have been used extensively to support positions regarding birthright citizenship.
In the middle of the first page you will see "Reconstruction". Senator Howard introduces the amendment and gives brief commentary. There you will find a famous/infamous quote I see used very often.
After Howard's comments, you will find Senator Cowan's comments. He unabashedly takes the side of limiting the scope of birthright citizenship. You will find several quotes from him that have made it into contemporary criticism of birthright citizenship.
After Cowan, you will find Senator Conness takes the wider view of birthright citizenship. He unabashedly takes the view that children born "of all parentage whatever" are citizens of the United States.
BOTTOMLINE: This is the official record of the debate. Best one read from the PRIMARY source rather than cherry-picked quotes to justifiy a particular point of view.
