Also known as: proditions · proditor · proditors · proditorie · proditorious · treason · betrayal · traitor
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An archaic noun denoting treason or treachery.
Parker Phillips faces charges of treason in State A after levying war against its government. He flees across the border into State B. The governor of State A issues a formal demand for his return. State B must deliver him to face trial in the state with jurisdiction over the crime.
Preston Pratt, while serving as President, directs officials to aid foreign enemies in exchange for personal gain. Congress investigates the conduct as treason, sometimes called prodition in older writings. The House votes articles of impeachment. The Senate then tries the charges to determine whether conviction and removal follow.
Paula Pierce obtains documents detailing a government official's treason, historically termed prodition, and plans to publish them. The executive branch seeks an injunction to block release. A court must decide whether the national security claim justifies suppressing the information before publication occurs.
The United States brought suit against the New York Times Company and the Washington Post Company seeking to enjoin publication of material from a classified government study on the history of United States decision-making regarding Vietnam policy. The newspapers had come into possession of the classified documents and had already begun publishing excerpts from the study in their respective newspapers before the government filed for injunctive relief. The District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in the New York Times case that the government had not satisfied the requirements for imposing a prior restraint. In the parallel Washington Post litigation, the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit both determined that the government had not met its burden. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the matters on an expedited schedule. Stays had been entered by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 23, 1971, and by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 24, 1971.
View casePatrick Phan owns a business accused of treason through secret dealings that undermine state authority, an act once labeled prodition. A new wage law applies to his operations. He challenges the statute as exceeding legislative power. The court weighs whether the regulation survives review under the applicable standard.
In 1913 the State of Washington enacted a statute entitled An Act to establish a minimum wage for women and minors. The law created an Industrial Welfare Commission. A later statute transferred its duties to an Industrial Welfare Committee consisting of the Director of Labor and Industries, the Supervisor of Industrial Insurance, the Supervisor of Industrial Relations, the Industrial Statistician and the Supervisor of Women in Industry. The statute required the commission to investigate wages and conditions of labor for women and minors. It required public hearings. When wages were found inadequate to supply the necessary cost of living and maintain workers in health, the commission was to convene conferences of employers, employees and public representatives before issuing obligatory orders fixing minimum wages. Special licenses were authorized for physically defective or apprentice workers at lower rates. The statute had remained in force for more than twenty-three years by the time of the present litigation. Elsie Parrish was employed by the West Coast Hotel Company as a chambermaid. She and her husband brought suit against the company to recover the difference between the wages actually paid and the minimum wage. The minimum wage was $14.50 per week of 48 hours fixed by the Industrial Welfare Committee pursuant to the statute. The company had paid her less than the prescribed minimum during her employment. The Supreme Court of Washington reversed the trial court judgment, sustained the statute, and directed entry of judgment for the plaintiffs. The West Coast Hotel Company appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The appeal brought before the Court the question of the constitutional validity of the Washington minimum wage statute. The Washington law was substantially identical to minimum wage statutes enacted in Oregon in the same year. Similar laws had been adopted in the District of Columbia in 1918 and in other states during the same period.
View casePedro Pacheco alleges that district lines were drawn to protect officials who committed treason, referred to as prodition in archaic usage. Voters seek judicial intervention to redraw the map. The court must decide whether the claim presents a justiciable controversy or remains a political question for the legislature.
In 1901 the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a statute apportioning the Senate with thirty-three members and the House of Representatives with ninety-nine members among the state's ninety-five counties. The Tennessee Constitution required a decennial enumeration of qualified voters and reapportionment of both houses on that basis. The General Assembly performed reapportionments after the enumerations of 1871, 1881, and 1891. After 1901 every proposal for reapportionment failed to pass. Between 1901 and 1960 the state's population grew from 2,020,616 to 3,567,089. The number of persons eligible to vote rose from 487,380 to 2,092,891. Substantial redistribution occurred from rural to urban counties. Appellants were residents and qualified voters of the urban counties of Davidson, Hamilton, Knox, Montgomery, and Shelby. They brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the Secretary of State, Attorney General, Coordinator of Elections, and members of the State Board of Elections. The complaint was filed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. It alleged that continued application of the 1901 statute debased their votes and denied equal protection of the laws. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional. It also sought an injunction against conducting further elections under the statute. Alternative relief included at-large elections or a court-ordered reapportionment. A three-judge district court convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2281 dismissed the complaint. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court characterized the controversy as a nonjusticiable political question. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. The case was argued in April 1961, set for reargument, reargued in October 1961, and decided on March 26, 1962.
View casePiper Patel receives a deportation order after evidence surfaces of her treason, once styled prodition. Congress attempts to override the order through a legislative veto. The court examines whether that mechanism complies with constitutional requirements for altering executive action.
In 1966 Jagdish Rai Chadha, an East Indian born in Kenya who held a British passport, was lawfully admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant student visa that expired on June 30, 1972. In October 1973, the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service informed Chadha that he had remained longer than permitted and was therefore deportable. Chadha conceded deportability but applied for suspension under section 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. On June 25, 1974, an Immigration Judge acting on behalf of the Attorney General suspended Chadha's deportation and adjusted his status to permanent resident after finding that he satisfied the statutory criteria of seven years' continuous presence, good moral character, and extreme hardship. A report of the suspension was transmitted to Congress as required by the Act. On December 16, 1975, the House of Representatives passed a resolution disapproving the suspension for Chadha and five other aliens on the ground that they did not meet the statutory requirements, particularly as to hardship. Pursuant to the House resolution, the Immigration Judge reopened the deportation proceedings. Chadha moved to terminate them on constitutional grounds, but the Immigration Judge ruled that he lacked authority to declare the resolution unconstitutional and ordered Chadha deported. Chadha appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which likewise held that it had no authority to pass on the constitutionality of the resolution and dismissed the appeal. Chadha then filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Immigration and Naturalization Service appeared and urged the court to hold the House resolution unconstitutional. After inviting briefs from the Senate and House as amici curiae, the Court of Appeals held the resolution unconstitutional because it was a legislative act that failed to satisfy the requirements of Article I, sections 1 and 7, and set aside the deportation order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the consolidated cases to address the constitutional question.
View caseProdition is an archaic term for treason. Treason against the United States consists only of levying war against them or adhering to their enemies by giving them aid and comfort. Conviction requires testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court.
Prodition is an archaic synonym for treason. The President may be removed only upon impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Prodition is an archaic term for treason. A person charged with treason who flees to another state must be delivered up on demand of the executive authority of the state from which the person fled.
No. Prodition is an archaic term for treason. The Constitution requires impeachment by the House followed by conviction in the Senate for treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors.