3

Emma Zuzunaga – Article III, Section 3

Video

Written Component

Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution defines treason, as well as the criteria for convicting people of treason, who decides the punishment for treason, and what punishment for treason is prohibited. Treason against the United States is defined as being one of two things, either levying war against, or offering aid and comfort to the enemies of, the United States. To be convicted of treason, two witnesses must give testament to witnessing the same act, or the accused must confess in court. Once convicted, the constitution says it is the job of Congress to decide the punishment of the criminal; however, Congress is not allowed to prohibit the descendants of the criminal from inheriting property from them after their death. 

This clause was created to establish a concrete definition of treason to prevent the government and politicians from using treason accusations to repress and silence political beliefs that did not align with their own. In Federalist No. 10 by James Madison, one of the founding fathers, Maddison discusses the potential harms of faction, especially to a young nation. This sentiment was likely reflected in the writing of the treason clause, which prevents powerful or ruling factions from shutting down those who do not agree with them, which could lead to social unrest. 

The motivation for the treason clause’s creation, the desire to prevent dominant parties from oppressing others and politically isolating them, also reflects the french revolution. The third estate at the estates general was oppressed by the first and second estates because they were consistently outvoted, and were politically isolated because they were eventually locked out of the room as punishment for attempting to stand up for themselves and their people. This led to an extremely violent revolution, which could have influenced the framers to try to prevent similar infighting through this clause. 

The last line of this clause directly opposed Britain’s law, which prohibited the descendants of traitors from inheriting their belongings. 

The 1945 Cramer v. United States case properly illustrates the most controversial aspect of this clause. Cramer v. United States case ruled that mentally adhering to America’s enemies was not the same as offering them aid and comfort, and so that was not given, no treason was committed. On the opposing side of this case, the Government side of the court, who lost, argued that offering America’s enemies aid and comfort should be interpreted loosely to provide a more applicable version of the law which could be used during times of war. Modern scholars argue that the restraints the clause illustrates actually prevent traitors from being charged with treason on technicalities, and treason is now very difficult to prove. 

I believe that the Government’s interpretation of the treason clause is more compelling and should be the interpretation we use because it makes the law much more applicable in a modern context. The Constitution should be a living document, and our definition of treason should be different than the framers of the Constitution. 

Angelina Chu – Article 3, Section 1 (Judicial Branch)

Video

Written Component

Some framers of the Constitution believed that the federal government could not be successful without a judicial system to enforce such laws. This is rooted in the issues of the Articles of Confederation (1777) due to a weak central government, leading to a lack of unity among the states. One of the main flaws of the Articles was that it failed to enforce the laws that it preached. The Constitution strives to instill the unity that the Articles lacked by enforcing its unifying principles through the judicial system.
The judicial system is one of the three branches of the United States government. The common interpretation of Article 3 is that it unifies the states under one judicial system and Supreme Court.

In particular, Section 1 of Article 3 establishes this Supreme Court as the highest court in the judicial system, with inferior courts established by Congress when necessary. It also strives to enforce the integrity of the judicial system by stating that judges may keep such positions for the rest of their lives as long as they maintain “good behavior.” By instilling the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, Section 1 grants judges the ability to interpret the law. This strengthens the federal government as the Judicial branch can review governmental affairs, helping to check and balance the other two branches of government.


Although this interpretation of Article 3, Section 1 may be common, historical scholars have diverged in their understandings of the section. In Not Your Founding Fathers’ Judiciary, scholar David A. Strauss argues that the judicial system does not function in the way the founding fathers intended, with state courts taking on more importance than the Supreme Court. Although Section 1 puts emphasis on how the states are united under one Supreme Court, Strauss conveys that with the increasing number of crimes today, most cases do not have a chance to make it to the Supreme Court, with justice being carried out in state courts instead. On the other hand, academic Richard W. Garnett conveyed his argument in the article The “Judicial Power” and the Power of Judicial Review where he expresses the importance of judicial review, the court’s power to interpret and enforce the law.

Through its ability to deem governmental actions constitutional, Garnett presents that the judicial branch checks and balances the Executive and Legislative branches and thereby upholds the Constitution. The importance of judicial review is also demonstrated in Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison of 1803, which established judicial review, legitimatizing the Supreme Court’s right to rule laws as constitutional.
As Garnett highlights, Section 1’s establishment of the Supreme Court and judicial review helps to check and balance the other branches of the government.

This idea can be traced back to Montesquieu’s Enlightenment philosophy of the separation of powers. As Montesquieu details in his 1748 work, The Spirit of Laws, he proposes that the government must not be concentrated and instead split up into separate branches, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, to check and balance the others, preventing tyranny and abuse of power. Article 3, the judicial branch, plays an imperative role in carrying out the separation of powers, upholding the integrity of the Constitution. Although the judicial system is a necessity to the Constitution, one possible amendment would be to classify “good behavior.” As behaving without “good behavior” is the only condition under which a judge would no longer be deemed fit for the job, defining what such behavior is would warrant that all judges are held to a specific, uniform standard and therefore ensure the Constitution’s integrity.

Daya: Article 3 Section 3 The Treason Clause

Video

Written Component

 

The treason clause is the only crime explicitly defined in the Constitution. It was not included to insure loyalty of citizens, but rather was included as a precautionary measure to prevent against the government’s misuse of treason prosecutions to stifle legitimate political opposition. By specifying the terms necessary for one to be convicted of treason, trials were focused on the narrowly defined terms of treason and prevented the punishment of cases without sufficient evidence.

The Treason Clause states that treason can only be prosecuted under two circumstances: levying war against the United States or providing enemies with aid and support. In order for an individual to be convicted, there must be testimony from two witnesses of the overt offense or a confession in open court. Additionally, the clause states that Congress is responsible for determining the punishment for treason while also saying that the punishment cannot extend beyond the convicted person’s life. This means that there can be no forfeiture of wealth and property.

In 1807 a case called Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout emerged. The case focused around an alleged plot by former Vice President Aaron Burr and two associates to overthrow the government in New Orleans. However, due to the strict definition of treason, they were not convicted. The Supreme Court decided that conspiring to levy war, such as drawing plans, recruiting troops, and finding maps, was different than having a group of people ready to commit the treasonous act. 

In another treason case, Cramer v the United States in 1954, the defendant, Cramer, was prosecuted for allegedly helping a Nazi soldier who had snuck into America during World War II. The court decided that in the case, there was both concrete action and intent to betray the nation, and therefore Cramer was convicted. This set the bar very high for other treason cases because it required both evident action and intent to betray the nation. In this case, the government attempted to argue that the Treason Clause should be interpreted leniently for wartime use. The court held true to the Framers’ beliefs and dismissed the idea of leniency during wartime, saying that treason cannot be the primary legal weapon to protect national security. While Cramer was convicted for treason, the court told the government that they could pursue other charges such as the  violation of the Espionage act, or the Trading with the Enemy Act without having to go through the specific Treason Clause. This ruling made it much harder to convict someone for treason in the future as there had to be evidence of support for the enemy and intention to betray the nation.

This begs the question, is the Treason Clause still relevant. Firstly, someone can still commit treason, which was the case for Adam Gadahn who was indicted for treason in 2006. Secondly, the Treason Clause represents the original values of the Framers. The strict procedure to convict someone is a reminder that the Framers did not want the government to suppress political opposition with threats of treason and wanted to safeguard individual rights. In America, the rise of the public sphere meant that different political ideas were freely circulating. In addition, today, with the widespread usage of social media, many political ideologies are discussed frequently. In both of these cases, the Framers’ original intentions prevent these discussions from having any repercussions.