Again sorry for delay. I am trying to get some research done before the market opens tomorrow.
It is important to note that the Constitution was not meant to be treated as Statute like a legislature would pass. Or even the United States Code. We have volumes and volumes of laws. They can exist so long as they do not run afoul of the Constitution.
I teach Government/Civics to 8th graders. And I know that is a bad comparison here but when they come to me many of have it in their head that any law not specifically stated in the Constitution is "unconstitutional" well - obviously that is not accurate.
Take a look at the link you provided and the Haup case. I think that is a great case to look at to explain the situation.
The Constitution itself does not make it super clear that a father buying is son a car, helping him get a job with a defense contractor and providing him with a place to live amounts to treason if the son is a spy.
I think that the Constitution implies that the Defendant (the father in that case) must have knowledge that the person he aided (in this case the son) was a spy or enemy, but it doesnt say it specifically say it has to be knowing.
The SCOTUS though does interpret that clause of the Constitution to knowingly give aid to an Enemy.
Now the father attempted to argue that he didn't give aid to the Son in order to further the son's spying. But the Court decided that really didnt matter. You knew he was a spy, that was established by 2 witnesses as required and the son was clearly aided by the father's actions of buying a car, getting the job and so on.
