Because legal terms in legal theory require precise definitions, the process of law cannot be executed without such precision, else the rule of law breaks down.
Notions of ‘allegiance’, ‘patriotism’, ‘loyalty’ are all amorphous in a variety of settings.
But certain positions in society need a visible, recordable, certifiable record of fact. Taking an Oath is the means to establish such fact in the context of allegiance.
Americans agree to pledge allegiance to the Flag or stand for its National Anthem. There is no law requiring such conformance. Although some kneel in protest of such symbolic acts, there is no law requiring them to do one or the other. But there is a social compact. There is a right for Americans to shun and disapprove of such kneelers to the point where the commerce is disrupted and the franchise leaders move to stanch the bleeding to their bottom lines. Pragmatism weighs in favor of social compacts.
But these are acts of populist America whereas certain other acts can harm the Republic and these harmful acts must be defined and dealt with. Hence, laws and affirmations by oaths are vital.
What is the support for the contention that a person must have sworn an oath of allegiance to the US, that is, have it on formal record, in order to be charged with treason?
I've offered Tokyo Rose as a counter to that point, and now offer Axis Sally as an additional case where I see no evidence of affirming allegiance (taking an oath), yet the defendant was charged with and convicted of treason. You have not respnding to this aspect of my half-baked point of view.
I understand the point that some evidence is better than other evidence, meaning affirmation of allegiance certainly establishes owing allegiance.
My contention is that, as a matter of law, all US citizens owe allegiance to the US, whether or not they took an oath of allegiance. Establish citizenship (birth cert is evidence), and the duty (owing) of allegiance is established.
You do understand you are on the Q thread, right.
What does this have to do with Q?
You are VERY rapidly becoming quite tiresome.
I agree. That's the framework of the law, at least in principle and until the liberals get ahold of it and start to redefine words and phrases. Our disagreement is over what constitutes "owing allegiance" to the US, and more specifically, ONLY as applied in the context of the treason statute.
You claim that absent an oath, a person can not be charged with treason, and this is because, absent the oath, the state cannot prove the person owes allegaince to the US.
Advice to those of you who are waffling on your support for the US, don't take an oath - that way you can't be charged with treason.
-- But these are acts of populist America whereas certain other acts can harm the Republic and these harmful acts must be defined and dealt with. Hence, laws and affirmations by oaths are vital. --
To use the vernacular, the insertion of "and affirmations by oaths" is conclusory. You haven't supported that particular aspect with any precedent or statutory authority, and precedent and statutory authority is where legal defintions are found.