is

The Treason Clause Is a Catch-22

Video

Written Component

The tensions rising between Great Britain and the American colonies in the 18th century, such as taxes disproportionately rising for the colonies, fueled dissent among the colonists against the monarchy. Yet, such dissent—whether it was simply ideological or political—that threatened the power or prevailing order of Great Britain was widely categorized as treason, particularly in the case of the colonists. The Framers of the United States Constitution, directly encountering the injustices of treason charges, clearly defined treason and established safeguards that protected the freedom of expression and thought of those being tried for the crime in the Treason Clause in Article III, Section 3. The Clause, however, is a catch-22: compelling and particular proof is required to convict one of treason, complicating the process and resulting in very few cases ever convicted of treason. Simultaneously, this process protects those being wrongfully convicted.

Though the Framers aimed to stray away from any ambiguity that may engender an abuse of power, the constitutional protection of the Clause narrows the scope of the offense, making it an umbrella term for many other similar crimes. The two types of actions that are defined as treasonous are: (1) “levying war” against the United States, or (2) “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States], giving them aid and comfort.” The testimony of two witnesses or a confession from the person being tried is also required as part of procedural requirements. Scholars Paul Crane and Deborah Pearlstein identify the distinction between treasonous action versus thought the Framers weaved in the Clause, increasing the complexity of convicting one of treason as they must have taken concrete action against the national security of the United States. In Cramer v. United States (1945), the lawyers of Anthony Cramer, being tried because he assisted German soldiers in invading American land, argued treason charges should be reserved in times of war. This made convicting one of treason complicated because “levying war” implies one must have been unequivocally involved in an armed rebellion against the United States, and this would occur usually only in times of war. Requiring the testimony of two witnesses or either a confession, the Clause becomes even more complex as further evidence is required rather than solely circumstantial evidence that may convict an innocent person. Thus, what may seem as treason is subverted to, as Pearlstein says, “treason by any other name.” Frequently, cases of suspected treason that do not meet the particular needs of the Clause are convicted of espionage. This is seen in Rosenberg v. United States (1953), when couple Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of espionage rather than treason for revealing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union solely because they did not meet all the safeguards of the Clause.

Today, the Clause still remains complex. The January 6 insurrection of Capitol Hill by supporters of Donald J. Trump, though widely considered treason by the left-leaning American population, has not yet been tried for treason. Scholars believe the complexity the trial imposes legally, as well as the historically few cases convicted of treason, causes prosecutors to shy away from advancing with their argument. This implores us as Americans to think: Has the day come to modify the Clause to portray modern day America in context of the January 6 riot? How do we reconstruct a Clause that is free of political bias and inclusive of all Americans and their political views?

The bibliography of this written component has been submitted on Google LTI. 

The Third Amendment– Why is it important today?

Video

Written Component

A lot of the context behind the Third Amendment stems from America and Britain’s tensions before the American Revolution. After the Seven Years War between Britain and France, Parliament passed the Quartering Act in 1765, which required American colonists to provide barracks or inns, stables, and alehouses for British soldiers to sleep in. The colonists were also required to provide provisions such as bedding, firewood, and beer. The Third Amendment constitutionally advocates for rights that previous oppressive laws like the Quartering Act denied. It also aligns with the values of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including liberty and the right to personal property. 

The Third Amendment is commonly interpreted as largely limiting the federal government’s ability to quarter soldiers in any person’s private home. The term quarter in this amendment has been commonly interpreted to mean sheltering, placing, or lodging. The phrases “time of peace” and “time of war” refer to the American colonists after the Seven Years War who were forced to quarter British soldiers despite a lack of war or conflict. 

The Third Amendment is one of the least cited and independently debated amendments, but the few interpretations about it still reveal significant details about the intent behind the amendment and its importance to the Constitution throughout history. A notable landmark case directly addressing the Third Amendment was the 1982 Engblom v. Carey case. This case was the first time the Third Amendment was ever interpreted. Engblom v. Carey was a case concerning whether the state of New York violated the Third Amendment rights of correctional officers when it used their state-owned residences to house New York National Guards. In the process of analyzing the case and specific use of the Third Amendment, the Second Circuit Court ended up making three distinct interpretations. The first is how national guards fit the Third Amendment’s description of a “Soldier”. The second was how the Third Amendment’s restrictions applied to state governments as well as the federal government. Finally, the third interpretation was that the Third Amendment also applied to people who were not owners of the property, as long as they had control over the privacy of the property. All of these interpretations illustrate the Third Amendment as less of an exclusive law protecting the private properties of a select few from an oppressive government and military, but more of a law protecting the properties of the general public from various enforcers under governments of all scales. The interpretations of the Third Amendment in Engblom v. Carey make the amendment broader and more applicable in modern contexts.

The Third Amendment and its implications are strongly connected to concepts about establishing independence and national identity. Language in this section of the constitution such as “Soldier” and “quartered” directly refers to its historical context, which included the Quartering Act. By including an amendment that directly opposed Britain’s oppressive Quartering Act, the colonies were able to future separate themselves from Britain and portray themselves as beacons of liberty, people’s rights, and anti-oppression. The Constitution’s Third Amendment is a prominent example of how the colonies were able to forge a uniting anti-Britain identity and establish themselves as an independent, revolutionary nation. This is similar to the impact of the Declaration of Independence over 10 years prior, where unique attributes of the United States were listed to contribute towards the making of a novel national and international identity.