There may come a time in any state when it becomes a point of debate whether something as minor as forging a ration card is or is not "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" and therefore treasonous. If the President is charged with leading the country in this strange new kind of war, and some people call it that (though I don't), where is line that divides domestic and foreign policy? More specifically, since any line is artificial, where do we want to draw it? This becomes a discussion not of law but of values. It's bad enough we're already in the position of defending a secret court[!] against those who think it's an impediment to governmental authority.

The terms of debate need to be changed. The best defense we can mount of the Constitution at this point is to ask ourselves what it is we think it represents. This is a question for statesmen, not lawyers.*
And they seem to be in short supply.

*Philosophers seem to have lost interest.
---

The above is in response to this, which I mentioned somewhere else and then forgot to post here. Posner is such a dumbfuck.