The Constitution defines treason thus:

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.

So, some ask, does this mean that anyone who helps our enemies (as the reader suggests John Kerry did with his statements during the Vietnam War) is guilty of treason, assuming the procedural requirements are satisfied?

No. The Supreme Court has held that "adhering" requires an intent to help the nation's enemies. Merely knowledge that one's actions will help the enemies isn't enough. Thus, for instance, in Haupt v. United States (1947), the Court concluded that a father's sheltering his son -- a Nazi saboteur -- isn't treason if his intention was simply to help his son (as a result of "parental solicitude"). To be treasonous, the father's actions had to be intended to aid the Nazis. Likewise, in Cramer v. United States (1945), the Court held that:

On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy -- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength -- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

There are some mid-19th century decisions that take a broader view of treason, for instance concluding that all trading with the enemy in time of war is treasonous, without regard for whether one is intending to help the enemy, or just intending to make money (which one knows will help the enemy, but which one doesn't do with the specific purpose of helping the ennemy). But the modern view is that intention, not knowledge, is necessary.

Here’s a shocking revelation about that hatchet-faced "journalist" Ann Coulter, her fling with Big Mouth O'Reilly and the demon seed that together they spawned...

http://www.averyant.com/video_anncoulter.htm

thanks,

Mike

http://www.averyant.com/rants.html

There are often calls in the blogworld for academics on one side or another to denounce vicious person X who is in some indeterminate sense on ‘their side’. Unless X is in a position of real political power, e.g. a Senate Committee Chair, these calls seem thoroughly misguided to me. Conservative academics are under no more obligation to denounce vile commentators like Coulter than social democrat academics are to denounce the extremists on their flanks, the Ward Churchills of the world and the like. Frankly there is too little time in the day to be spent trying to find out if some Labor voter from the University of Woolloomooloo said something false that I should be distancing myself from. But I don’t go around actively aligning myself with the very worst my side has to offer. Bonevac can’t say the same thing, and he should feel ashamed of that.

Coulter commits the worst political sin you can commit in a democracy – she doesn’t allow that there might be such a thing as a loyal opposition. In Coulter’s world there is only support for the government or opposition by any means possible. This way lies perpetual revolution, and I can’t imagine why anyone, let alone a conservative, would want to be along for the ride.

12 And Jesus entered into the temple and threw out all those selling and buying in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 And he said to them: “It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but YOU are making it a cave of robbers.” 14 Also, blind and lame persons came up to him in the temple, and he cured them.

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native criminal class except Congress," Twain said again and again in the many lectures he gave to American and foreign audiences from the time he went on the lecture circuit regularly in the 1860s until his death in 1910. "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself," he would say, to guffaws and applause. It was his favorite way of starting a lecture.

Invocation Delivered by The Rev. Dr. Luis Leon
Rector of St. John's Church, Lafayette Square
At the 55th. Inauguration of the President of the United States
January 20, 2005


Most gracious and eternal God, we gather today as a grateful people who enjoy the many blessings you have bestowed on this nation.

We are grateful for your vision, which inspired the founders of our nation to create this democratic experiment-one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We are grateful that you have brought to these shores a multitude of peoples of many ethnic, religious and language backgrounds and have fashioned one nation out of our many traditions.

We remember before you the members of the armed forces. We commend them to your care. Give them courage to carry out their duties and courage to face the perils which beset them and grant them a sense of your presence in all that they do. (From the Book of Common Prayer) We pray for their families. Support them and hold them in the palm of your hand while their loved ones are absent from them.

Today, we are especially grateful for this inauguration marking a new beginning in our journey as a people and a nation. We pray that you will shower the elected leaders of this land and especially George, our President, and Richard, our Vice President, with your life-giving spirit. Fill them with a love of truth and righteousness that they may serve you and this nation ably and are glad to do your will. Endow their hearts with your spirit of wisdom that they may lead us in renewing the "ties of mutual respect which form our civic life." (from the Book of Common Prayer)

Sustain them as they lead us to exercise our privileges and responsibilities as citizens and residents of this country that we may all work together to eliminate poverty and prejudice so "that peace may prevail with righteousness and justice with order." (from the Book of Common Prayer)

Strengthen their resolve as our nation seeks to serve you in this world that this good and generous country may be a blessing to the nations of the world. May they lead us to become, in the words of Martin Luther King, members of a beloved community, loving our neighbors as ourselves so that all of us may more closely come to fulfill the promise of our founding fathers-one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All this we ask in your most holy name. Amen.

(Many of these words and themes are taken from the Book of Common Prayer, 1979.)

It's hard to believe but Ann Coulter love[s] the Grateful Dead. By her rough count she's been to 67 shows all of them without consuming any drugs.

When talking about Deadheads there always comes a point when the hippy stuff gets too descriptive:

I fondly remember seeing the Dead when I was at Cornell. It was the day of the fabulous Fiji Island party on the driveway “island” of the Phi Gamma Delta House. We'd cover ourselves in purple Crisco and drink purple Kool-Aid mixed with grain alcohol and dance on the front yard. Wait – I think got the order reversed there: We'd drink purple Kool-Aid mixed with grain alcohol and then cover ourselves in purple Crisco – then the dancing. You probably had to be there to grasp how utterly fantastic this was.

Ann Coulter covered in purple Crisco? It's taking an amazing amount of willpower to not put that image in my mind.

Schumer's propensity for publicity is the subject of a running joke amongst many commentators, leading Bob Dole to quip that "the most dangerous place in Washington is between Charles Schumer and a television camera." Schumer frequently schedules media appearances on Sundays, a slow day for news, in the hope of getting television coverage, typically on subjects other than legislative matters.

Surely the line "The most dangerous place is between XXX and a camera."
predates Bob Dole and Chuck Schumer.

Phil Gramm was the most common target of the joke when he was in Congress.
The earliest Proquest/Nexis/Factiva example with Gramm is from 5/18/82
(NYT).

GG:What would have to happen to make you say it was a bad idea to invade [Iraq] ?

AC:"That's a good question. It would be a mistake if we just futz around and the whole country became like one long Falluja. I thought we were wasting way too much time on that. This is a war, let's go in and win it. Just take the city! I think if it got to the point where it was going on for six, seven years, and it was just Americans patrolling without killing anyone -- I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties. I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."

GG:Nuke North Korea?

AC:"Right -- and this is tied to my point that, in Iraq, let the Marines do their job. There may be some civilian casualties -- that's known as war. Americans can live with that. And when did we become the guardian of the world to prevent all civilian casualties, ever -- how about our civilians?"

GG:After we bomb North Korea, what's the next country we should invade?

AC:"Iran. Though that's the beauty part of Iraq: It may well not be necessary. Because precisely what I'm saying with nuking North Korea -- despite that wonderful peace deal Madeline Albright negotiated with the North Koreans, six seconds before they feverishly began developing nuclear weapons. They're a major threat. I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world."

GG:What about Mecca?

AC:"Seriously, I think the rest of the countries in the Middle East, after Afghanistan and Iraq, they're pretty much George Bush's bitch," she said. "I think they know we're serious: We have a President who can do what he thinks is right, whether or not there are a bunch of liberals carping, and no matter what the letter writers to The New York Times have to say about being ashamed for their country."