Fact check: What is the definition of treason under Article III of the US Constitution?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution defines treason very specifically and narrowly. The constitutional definition establishes two distinct types of conduct that constitute treason: ^{[1] [2] [3]}

• Levying war against the United States
• Adhering to enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort

The Constitution also establishes strict evidentiary requirements for conviction, requiring either the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or confession in open court ^[2]. The Supreme Court has interpreted both offenses narrowly, requiring concrete action and specific intent to betray the nation, not merely "un-American" speech or insufficient patriotism ^{[3] [1]}.

Regarding punishment, treason is punishable by death or imprisonment for not less than five years and a fine of not less than $10,000, contrary to some misconceptions about public hanging being specified in the US code ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question, while straightforward, lacks important historical and practical context that the analyses reveal:

• The Founders deliberately defined treason narrowly to prevent its abuse as a political weapon, which was common in English law where treason charges were used to silence political opposition ^{[3] [1]}
• Treason prosecutions in the United States have been extremely rare throughout history, reflecting the narrow constitutional definition and high evidentiary standards ^{[5] [6]}
• Modern overuse of the term "treason" in political discourse has reached alarming levels, with the word being applied to conduct that falls far short of the constitutional definition ^[3]
• The requirement of "enemies" in the constitutional definition has specific legal meaning - typically referring to nations with which the United States is in a declared state of war, not merely adversaries or hostile actors ^[1]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself contains no apparent misinformation or bias - it is a straightforward request for constitutional definition. However, the analyses reveal that widespread misunderstanding and misuse of the term "treason" in public discourse creates an environment where accurate constitutional knowledge becomes crucial ^[3].

The analyses suggest that political figures and media personalities benefit from loosely applying the term "treason" to conduct that doesn't meet the constitutional standard, as it amplifies political rhetoric and generates public attention, even when such usage is constitutionally inaccurate ^[3]. This misuse serves those who seek to weaponize the concept for political gain rather than adhere to the precise legal definition established by the Founders.