Question: Legally, can a govt official found guilty of TREASON

[BigmanPigman]

be punished via execution? I am not a constitutional lawyer and would like to know if this is still valid 2018. Also, does the title/position of the person found guilty of this crime effect the punishment according to the Constitution?

* I ask this due to the increasing possibility of sitting congress members being involved in these crimes, especially after the recent info exposed by the details of indictments such as the NRA Russian spy and her "boyfriend" and other emails.

[joshcryer]

1. Yes, but it takes two witnesses or a confession.

And a confession would probably come with a reprieve from execution.

But Trump would pardon himself.

[BigmanPigman]

2. Huh, how could he pardon himself?

Doesn't that go against the original intent? What is the point of having a constitutional punishment for a crime if the one found guilty gets to choose his punishment? I thought the Founding Fathers would be against this when they wrote it. It would be like King George saying that if found guilty of anything he wouldn't be punished for anything as a monarch. I am sure that the constitution was written with this particularly possibility in mind.

[joshcryer]

3. Article II, Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Nothing forbidding a self-pardon. Nixon famously was going to do it. The "except in Cases of Impeachment" arguably implies that "except" for the President he can pardon anyone and everyone unless they're being impeached, including himself. The problem is Republicans wouldn't impeach him even if he self-pardoned.

[alwaysinasnit]

5. Hmm. If you could pardon yourself, wouldn't that make you a de facto "king"? I thought the

Declaration of Independence laid out why the Colonies rebelled; abuses by the monarchy. Could we claim that the "original intent" of the founders was to eliminate the possibility of concentrating power in one person? Just a thought.

[joshcryer]

6. There's a term for this. "Nemo iudex in causa sua"

It means "no-one should be a judge in his own case."

One would think that the SCOTUS would rule that he can't self pardon because of this, it's a basic principle of natural law.

But we're talking about Trump here. He'd do it. Declare himself untouchable. And the Republicans wouldn't do shit.

[alwaysinasnit]

9. Yes, you're probably right. I was just indulging in wishful thinking.

[Cicada]

4. The federal crime of treason requires a war

We are not at war with Russia. Julius Rosenberg gave nuclear bomb secrets to the USSR, and was executed, but he was not charged with treason. Because we were not at war with the USSR.

Conspiring in cybercrime is a possibility.

Putting the interests of Russia ahead of the interests of the US is not illegal. Impeachable, but not illegal.

[BigmanPigman]

7. I have read that the constitution needs to be updated to include

changes in Technology (election hacking) as a type of warfare and with the 2 Amend which was written before semi automatics were even imagined in the 1700s.

[joshcryer]

8. No it doesn't. The US constitution adopts the language of the Treason Act 1351.

"Levying war" and "adhering to their Enemies" are copied verbatim and are considered two types of treason.

[Cicada]

10. Enemies in this case requires a nation or group at war with the US

They may be two types of treason but both types require a war. Enemy as used in this context means some country or group at war with the US. We are not at war with Russia. The courts have confirmed this view. Again think about Julius Rosenberg, not charged with treason. No war, no treason.