P1: Ruby freeman should be executed.

P2: Executed... for what?

P3: Treason

u/BakasEverywhere: How was it treason? People just keep using that word without understanding what it means. It's basically made it meaningless now.

Bakas brings up a very valid point, and we do throw out accusations of treason quite a bit, so let’s address this and see what all might go into accusations of it.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-3/

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.

Treason is a unique offense in our constitutional order—the only crime expressly defined by the Constitution, and applying only to Americans who have betrayed the allegiance they are presumed to owe the United States. While the Constitution’s Framers shared the centuries-old view that all citizens owed a duty of loyalty to their home nation, they included the Treason Clause not so much to underscore the seriousness of such a betrayal, but to guard against the historic use of treason prosecutions by repressive governments to silence otherwise legitimate political opposition. Debate surrounding the Clause at the Constitutional Convention thus focused on ways to narrowly define the offense, and to protect against false or flimsy prosecutions.

ArtIII.S3.C1.1 Historical Background on Treason - https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S3-C1-1/ALDE_00013524/

The Clause was therefore intended to put extend[ing] the crime and punishment of treason beyond Congress’s power. the Framers contemplated a restrictive concept of the crime of treason that would prevent the politically powerful from escalating ordinary partisan disputes into capital charges of treason, as so often had happened in England

What are some cases of this from England that they would have been concerned about?

https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/how-those-found-guilty-of-treason-were-punished/

The severity of Dafydd ap Gruffydd’s punishment was almost certainly influenced by Edward I’s anger against the Welsh prince, who had rebelled against him, and each form of his execution was linked to specific crimes. For betraying the king he was to be drawn at the horse’s tail to the place of execution. For killing certain English noblemen, he was to be hanged alive

Payments recorded for the execution of William Wallace, which record him claiming to be ‘King of Scotland’.

They fail to mention very prominently that Dafydd was apparently the Prince of Wales, or that both these “rebellions” were from provinces trying to break free and run themselves independently, and during the same time period, if not overlapping. Interesting.

The symbolism of a treason execution could also take more unusual forms. The execution of Sir John Oldcastle in 1417 linked two separate forms of execution in symbolic fashion once again. Oldcastle was a lollard, a religious reform movement which spread in the early 15th century , and which was the subject of regular crackdowns by the Lancastrian regime. As a religious movement, the lollard movement was faced by charges of both heresy and treason.

We see here the impetus for “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion”, as attempting to leave the Anglican Church, of whom the king was also the pope, was both heresy and treason, by law, thus we do not establish an official state church (let’s leave any further delving on this subject out of this topic, as it is a different rabbit hole).

Then we start to fall into what definitely would have been sought to be protected against.

Thomas Kerver, a gentleman from Reading in Berkshire, was charged with uttering treasonous words against Henry VI in the precinct of Reading Abbey in 1444, stating that it the realm would have been £100,000 wealthier had the king died twenty years earlier when he was young.

Edward Coke decides in R v Owen that mere speech about the monarch could be treason if it "disabled his title" in departure from his earlier statement "it is commonly said that bare words may make a heretick, but not a traytor without an overt act"

Thus we start to see some of the issues that were desired to be avoided, as English treason was absolutely in conflict with free speech by free men.

Thus, the Framers adopted two of the three formulations and the phraseology of the English Statute of Treason enacted in 1350 but they conspicuously omitted the phrase defining as treason the compass[ing] or imagin[ing] the death of our lord the King,4 under which most of the English law of constructive treason had been developed.5 Beyond limiting Congress’s power to define treason,6 the Clause also limits Congress’s ability to make proof of the offense of treason easy to establish7 and to define the punishment for treason.8

So who does make proof of the offense of treason and establish its punishment?

https://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation24.html

Ex Parte Bollman case https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/8/75.html

Are the accusations of it from citizens? Military? I haven’t seen it yet. We may have to read cases to see this, as it’s probably not a thing [they] would want us to know about.

ArtIII.S3.C1.2 Levying War as Treason - https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S3-C1-2/ALDE_00013525/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

Beginning with the reign of Edward I the Crown asserted its authority to recognize rebellions ("levying war") as treasonous.

By English law, American independence and “self governance” (if that ever actually truly happened) was absolutely an act of treason, and the quote of “either we hang together, or we shall assuredly hang separately” was meant very literally, as proven by the same attempted acts from Wales and Scotland.

"Levying war" refers to assembling for a purpose "treasonable in itself." It requires actions against the United States and not just a conspiracy against the nation.

This is an interesting distinction. What would the difference be?

ArtIII.S3.C1.3 Trial of Aaron Burr - I’ll skip this one. If someone else wants to dive in, feel free.

Early judicial interpretation of the Treason Clause and the term levying war arose in the context of the partisan struggles of the early nineteenth century and the treason trials of Aaron Burr and his associates. In Ex parte Bollman,1 which involved two of Burr’s confederates, Chief Justice John Marshall, speaking for himself and three other Justices, confined the meaning of levying war to the actual waging of war.

ArtIII.S3.C1.4 Aid and Comfort to the Enemy as Treason

To convict someone of the crime of treason for giving aid or comfort to an enemy, the government must prove two elements: 1. Adherence or loyalty to an enemy of the United States, and 2. Providing aid or comfort to the enemy. The Supreme Court has noted, treason cannot exist if either element is missing.

For example, a U.S. citizen may favor or harbor sympathies for an enemy or hold beliefs that are disloyal to the United States. However, so long as they don't act on those by giving aid or comfort to the enemy, they have not committed treason.

Similarly, a U.S. citizen can take actions that, in fact, aid or comfort the enemy. However, as long as there is no adherence or loyalty to the enemy (i.e., no intent to betray the United States), there is no treason.

An enemy of the United States is a person, partnership, or other group of individuals who live within the territory of any nation the United States is at war with. It also includes governments of any nation with whom the United States is at war.

Another way to think about whether someone is an enemy or not is if their loyalties lie with a country other than the United States, in combination with their actions against the United States.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39

Other cases of treason

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/325/1.html

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/330/631.html

Some other interesting finds:

Until the late 19th century, Britain - like various other countries - held to a doctrine of "perpetual allegiance to the sovereign", dating back to feudal times, under which British subjects, owing loyalty to the British monarch, remained such even if they emigrated to another country and took its citizenship.

Hi, California.

After Napoleon fell from power for the first time, Marshal Michel Ney swore allegiance to the restored King Louis XVIII, but when the Emperor escaped from Elba, Ney resumed his Napoleonic allegiance, and commanded the French troops at the Battle of Waterloo. After Napoleon was defeated, dethroned, and exiled for the second time in the summer of 1815, Ney was arrested and tried for treason by the Chamber of Peers. In order to save Ney's life, his lawyer André Dupin argued that as Ney's hometown of Sarrelouis had been annexed by Prussia according to the Treaty of Paris of 1815, Ney was now a Prussian, no longer owing allegiance to the King of France and therefore not liable for treason in a French court. Ney ruined his lawyer's effort by interrupting him and stating: "Je suis Français et je resterai Français!" (I am French and I will remain French!).[11] Having refused that defence, Ney was duly found guilty of treason and executed.

This one is THE most important consideration in defining treason:

In other words, the ruling class used the crime of treason to eliminate their political dissidents.

We cannot do that, and should avoid being seen as doing that. “Optics matter.”

To the original case, Ruby is clearly involved in criminality, but treason would be reserved for someone higher up the chain, who is knowingly loyal to another nation and acting to usurp total control of the government and overthrow the constitution.

All that and more in one word, one relatively tiny clause of “treason”. Someone has most definitely committed it right now, but we will have to be discerning about who we accuse of it, why, how, and in which jurisdictions.