Related Citations

  • Zephyr Teachout, Gifts, Offices, and Corruption, 107 Nw. L. Rev. Colloquy 30 (2012).

    Notes that the treason clause is different from other references to the United States because it uses the pronoun “them” instead of “it” when defining treason. Thus, treason would include levying war against a particular state.

  • George P. Fletcher, Ambivalence About Treason, 82 N.C. L. Rev. 1611 (2004).

    Argues that treason charges are treated with ambivalence in the modern era because it violates modern norms (which are more liberal). Reviews the basis of treason in Anglo-American law and the feudal era.

  • Bradley Chapin, Colonial and Revolutionary Origins of the American Law of Treason, 17 Wm. & Mary Q. 3 (1960).

    Summarizes the colonial record of substantive and procedural law vis-a-vis treason. Notes that the American law of treason was simply “the law of England transferred to a new home” because very little had changed.

  • Francis A. Molony, Troubled Times and Treason, 15 Alb. L. Rev. 8 (1951).

    Notes that the framers only defined one crime in the Constitution: treason, but that its application was limited to times of war or when “enemies” could be clearly defined. Catalogs congressional legislation seeking to impose penalties on treasonous people at other times.

  • Charles Warren, What is Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy, 27 Yale L.J. 331 (1917).

    Summarizes what it means to give aid and comfort to the enemy under the treason clause. Discusses the drafting history and context of the clause, as it was based on an English statute. Employs original law originalism to cite early interpretations, such as those by Chief Justice Marshall, that state the crime of treason should not be extended to doubtful cases.