"or in adhering to their enemies ..."

Drive a truck through that, I think.

Hey, we didn't write it.

"The same overt Act" closes the loophole.

Don't think that closes anything at all. Whatever counts as "adhering to their enemies" will also count if two people witness it.

You and I may dread the idea that saying "I love Uncle Ho" in public, with enthusiasm, might suffice for treason if two people will say in court that we did it and they witnessed it, but if we deny this is "adhering" to an enemy of the United States, what will we say if some mad judge says we're full of beans, and yes it is?

I'm not sure I follow your run-on at all. However, my emphasis was on "overt," not on the two witnesses. In other words, I read the Constitution as stipulating that "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" must involve an "overt act"; opinions and speech do not count.

How is a public declaration not overt?

Who says speech does not count? You? The last judge anybody asked? What will the next judge say?

That last was my point.

Anyway, I won't bother you again.

Well, not after I remind you of Axis Sal, Lord Haw Haw, and Ezra Pound, anyway.

It may be overt, but it's not an act. The Constitution makes a pretty clear distinction between speech and behavior. In any case:

One may think disloyal thoughts and have his heart on the side of the enemy. Yet if he commits no act giving aid and comfort to the enemy, he is not guilty of treason. He may on the other hand commit acts which do give aid and comfort to the enemy and yet not be guilty of treason, as for example where he acts impulsively with no intent to betray.

-- Kawakita v. United States (US Supreme Court, 1952)

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Recognize that? It's the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and it says that I can call Osama Bin Laden a fine, upstanding citizen of the world, should I be so inclined.

Right up until the time a judge says it doesn't mean what all the world thinks it means.

Since when do conservatives take a relativistic view of the meaning of the Constitution?

Right up until the time a judge says it doesn't mean what all the world thinks it means.

That has got to be among the more irrelevant observations I have ever seen . . . I mean really. Idle and foolish speculation on whether "some judge" someday decides to rule that the first amendment doesn't allow freedom of speech has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that the so-called "Whistleblower's" assertion that Democrats are traitors is boorish (at best).

I cry obfuscation.