Overthrowing the Constitution should not be considered treason, nor should attempting to modify/restrict it in any way.
Overthrowing the Constitution is the definition of treason. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully because down below you talking about "altering" it which is VASTLY different from "overthrowing" it.
The whole power of the document is that it was meant to be changed; entire sections discarded, even down to the last. It is this power that makes rule by the Constitution free and not dictatorial.
What good is such an amazing power if we attempt to round folk up and stick 'em jail if they even so much as contemplate exercising it?
That's fine and dandy but the problem is that there are RULES about how the Constitution can be changed and they are contained within....the Constitution.
To change the Constitution you need 2/3 majority of Congress and 3/4 of the states to adopt changes. Either that or a new Convention.
The reason that the actions of Bush, Yoo, and company are treason is precisely because they were throwing out the Constitution without deference to the rules about how you go about doing that. There is NO provision for unilateral rejection of the Constitution by the Executive Branch. In fact, they take an oath just like all public officials to FOLLOW and PROTECT the Constitution.
dictionary.com writes:
Treason: 3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Breaking their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, blatantly disregarding the rule of law, disregarding the Constitution when they have no right to, is why they are traitors.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson