Quote:
Originally Posted by namisgr11
There comes a time in this post-election period where it needs to be given consideration whether President Trump and his Cabinet members refusing to perform their transition duties might be conducting acts of treason.
If one wants to go into this territory, precision and consistency of language should be used. In that regard it would not be treason, since treason usually refers to the act of aiding an enemy in war-time. People also like to throw the "sedition" term around, but "sedition" is a term used rarely in modern democracies, since various rights and protections tends to be understood extremely broadly in this context (for obvious reasons).
I'm no expert on US law, but it seems transitions are mostly governed by more modern acts / law. I would guess violations of these would be the most applicable legal framework. And in that context, probably when official mechanisms are in play. Not that it isn't unethical and horrible to not engage in transition of power in the middle of a pandemic, but law and ethics do not always walk hand in hand.
But as I have said many, many times on this forum: Modern democracies are really more governed by norm than they are by law. Not in the sense that the laws aren't important, but in the sense that it is very easy to have pretty laws (many dictatorships have fabulous-looking laws), but they aren't worth anything without good norms.
Sadly the above is these days used more to
defend actions ("well, it's not illegal!"), and criticism that points to norms is often looked upon as weak or irrelevant. We can use an analogy to illuminate how misguided this is: Would you want the policeman arresting you to a) be respectful of you and conscientious about use of power) be a sociopath, but only willing to hurt you when the law could be used to defend him.