Navarro is in the news now for accusing former Vice-President Mike Pence of treason during an interview on Newsmax: "I think Pence is guilty of treason to at least President Trump and perhaps to this country." The problem with the accusation he's apparently sure of, "treason to...[the] President" is that it doesn't exist, period. Don't believe me? Try the U. S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 on for size:
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. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
You cannot commit treason against any person, not even the President -- only the United States itself. As for his second claim, since Mike Pence did not "levy war"* or give aid and comfort to this nation's enemies, he's not guilty of treason to the country, either.
That's pretty crazy talk, but what caught my eye was a different interview, back in March, in which Navarro said: "It was a tragedy that Mike Pence decided to be a traitor to the American Caesar of Trump."
"American Caesar." Let that sink in. Do we all remember exactly what it was Gaius Julius Casar did for the Roman Republic, did so thoroughly that his cognomen became a synonym for king or emperor and lingered for millennia as "Kaiser" and "Czar?" He ended it. The Roman experiment in representative government came to crashing halt with Caesar and never resumed.
So tell me, is Peter Navarro that ignorant of history, or is he being nakedly honest about what he wants for the United States of America? Neither one is good, but one is considerably worse than the other.
The January 6 Committee has another hearing today. I am planning to watch it, or at least listen on the radio. This is not a "same old, same old" partisan snoozefest; the essential nature and future of the country is at stake.
_____________________
* The terms used in the definition derive from English legal tradition, specifically the Treason Act 1351. "Levying war" means the assembly of armed people to overthrow of the government or to resist its laws. H'mm, sounds a lot like something that did happen on 6 January 2021 but only involved Vice-President Pence as a prospective victim.
4 comments:
"ignorant of history" or "nakedly honest"
Perhaps the word "and" applies here?
He might have been thinking of Douglas MacArthur--remember that's the title of Manchester's bio. I don't see much in common between MacArthur and DJT other than big egos, but then I don't have the wild imagination Navarro seems to have.
He wasn't thinking of MacArthur.
It shouldn't be surprising, but I'm always disappointed by how many want rulers instead of leaders.
Post a Comment