Ah, but it's the states that the levying of war applies to which makes for treason, not the federal government — notice the plural 'them' instead of the singular 'it' which would be used in talking of a single entity. It is firmly established that DC is
not a state, therefore levying war upon
it cannot be treason unless it "gives aid and comfort" to the enemies of the several states.
Given that the federal government has moved to be in a position where it denies the states almost all sovereignty (read the dissenting opinions of the SB 1070 case) and looks to be open to assisting in an invasion (termed 'amnesty' or 'immigration reform') it could well be argued that the federal government is itself such an enemy of the several states.
Ah, but it's the states that the levying of war applies to which makes for treason, not the federal government — notice the plural 'them' instead of the singular 'it' which would be used in talking of a single entity. It is firmly established that DC is not a state, therefore levying war upon it cannot be treason unless it "gives aid and comfort" to the enemies of the several states. Given that the federal government has moved to be in a position where it denies the states almost all sovereignty (read the dissenting opinions of the SB 1070 case) and looks to be open to assisting in an invasion (termed 'amnesty' or 'immigration reform') it could well be argued that the federal government is itself such an enemy of the several states.I agree there is a tipping point where our vow to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and Domestic, requires us to take a stand against those that are obviously trying to destroy the Constitution, wherever we may find them. We weren't past this tipping point in April 1861.