From the first definition in the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition)
treason - the betrayal of a trust.
2007-06-01 14:47:34 · 10 answers · asked by Joe Maarsh 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Treason, as a crime, is defined differently in the US Constitution. It consists only of making war upon the United States, or materially assisting an enemy at war with the US.
The US Constitution overrules Websters.
2007-06-01 14:50:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
they're issues which could in basic terms be got here across after hundreds and hundreds of trials. and of direction, strict limit desires to be in place. besides the shown fact that, because of the fact the inspiration of technological know-how is often changing as a results of new discoveries, we ought to even have sympathy to the drug enterprise besides. they are not miracle makers, they only attempt to make income via merchandising something that they "think of" might help persons. think of the international without antibiotics and different medicine, how many human beings might ought to die? If we agree that technological know-how can get replaced, the drug enterprise would possibly no longer have an excuse of increasing medicine costs because of the fact of regulation healthful.additionally if we seem on the different section that has used the socialist device it has slowed down and did no longer stay as much as its Utopian promise. No device is acceptable yet open and loose marketplace is the best available.
2016-11-24 23:25:43 · answer #2 · answered by siwani 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's the legal definition of treason that counts. And, yes, if someone takes huges sums of money from China in return for helping them with thier missle program or giving them plans to US submarines, treason wouldn't be out of the question. Taking money for something as 'inocuous' as getting one company to build an interstate highway instead of another, OTOH, probably doesn't warrant it.
2007-06-01 14:52:42 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who would be the person who defines greed as excessive? You? Bill gates? That fat jabba the hut exxon ceo?
There is just no feasible way to do that in a free capitalistic society.
2007-06-01 14:50:32 · answer #4 · answered by youarewrongbobisright 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lets not diminish the offense of treason. There are already laws against financial crimes, we do not need to escalate these to capital offenses.
2007-06-01 14:50:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. But of whom are you speaking? I know there's a lot of greed going on in this country. Trying to pin point each and every person could take an eternity.
2007-06-01 14:50:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anton Mathew 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, and any government that would ask an individual to surrender or hinder his financial success isn't worth protecting.
2007-06-01 14:51:57 · answer #7 · answered by TheOrange Evil 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Greed is good. It's how populist poppycock purveyors like you get jobs when they choose to work.
2007-06-01 15:03:21 · answer #8 · answered by RP McMurphy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who would you charge? George Soros?
2007-06-01 14:58:23 · answer #9 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
isn't financial greed part of the american dream?
2007-06-01 14:49:52 · answer #10 · answered by vikingaprinsessan 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋