In all fairness, the amendment offered by Frist was unconstitutional. As sickening as Durbin and Biden are, they are allowed to say whatever they'd like. The fact that terrorists choose to use those words later cannot be held against the Democrats legally, though of course it's morally reprehensible that the Dems would say things that could be used in such a way.
I am not so sure that is true in the context of the war on terror. Treason and sedition are still crimes...what the definition of that is unclear because no one had the spine to uphold these laws even in the WWI era. It really is an interesting topic. Look up Smedley Butler who was arguably one of the US greatest war heroes ever who, after he retired, put John Kerry' anti-war delusions to shame.
Of course. Nobody expected, least of all Frist, for the amendment to pass. He was, as Rush says, "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd."
There is no constitutional right for a U.S. Senator to have a security clearance. Some of us were advocating revoking Pat Leahy's clearance years ago. There might be a separation of powers argument, but it's a weak one.
Next time the Republicans should ratchet it up with an amendment to declare it treason for a federal officeholder to make statements based on classified information that places U.S. troops at risk of reprisals by an enemy. There is no constitutional problem with that!