Sedition is against the law

[Playinghardball]

Konan A. DoBosu @kdobosu

.@TheObamaDiary What the extremist Tea party is doing to our country is called SEDITION and it is against US law.

9:54 AM - 7 Oct 2013

Found on the ObamaDiary

[AZ Progressive]

1. Republicans believe that they are above the law

How does this make any difference to them?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Sedition requires force

Refusing to do something you are legally entitled to refuse to do is not force.

[LaydeeBug]

6. No it does not. nt

[onenote]

7. Then why does it show up so often in the sedition statute?

Got some authority for your claim?

[LaydeeBug]

13. They are forcing government shut down. nt

18 USC § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

US Code
Notes
Updates

Current through Pub. L. 113-36. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[onenote]

20. Ridiculous.

Last edited Mon Oct 7, 2013, 02:53 PM - Edit history (1)

That is not what "by force" means in common legal parlance. Beyond that, you leave yourself open to the argument that both the House and the Senate have passed bills that would fund the government. However, they haven't passed the same bill and thus we have a stalemate. The repubs should be (and hopefully will be) punished politically because they have made a demand that they know won't (not can't) be met. (It might be different if they were demanding the Senate take an action the Senate is not lawfully allowed to take, but that isn't the case).

This is a political battle. President Obama threatened early on that he would veto a CR that included a provision defunding the ACA. If it had come to that, his veto would have been, imo, both the correct policy decision and a perfectly lawful act. Under your formulation of "force," however, the threatened veto, if carried out, would have "forced" the government shutdown, thus making President Obama guilty of sedition.

So, as I said: Ridiculous.

[indepat]

204. All of which raises the question as to whether constitutionally-elected officials can commit acts

which make them a constitutional enemy within rather than hard-ball politicians. Is there no line which cannot be crossed by constitutionally-elected officials? Is there nothing these sons-of bi*ches can or can't do that would violate their oaths of office or be a violation of Federal law or the Constitution?

[onenote]

205. Can the President veto a continuing resolution to fund the government?

[indepat]

238. The president sure as hell can if unrelated garbage (extortion) is attached thereto

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

212. The oath of office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

If the GOP leadership sends this country into default and a tailspin economic crash then they will have violated their oath of office.

[onenote]

240. what if that default occurs because the President vetoes a debt ceiling extension

that he doesn't like? Debt ceiling bills have been used as a vehicle for other changes in the law in the past. Bill Clinton vetoed a debt ceiling extension because it had extraneous crap in it, but later signed one that still had a couple of extraneous items in it that he didn't like but was willing to swallow (maybe because it could have been argued that he was violating his oath of office to allow the government to default because of a couple of provisions that were unrelated to the debt ceiling?)

This is a game of chicken. And if neither side in a game of chicken moves, neither one comes out looking very good.

I'm not saying the president should cave on the ACA or anything that important. And if I had confidence that the repubs would swerve I'd hope the president doesn't give in an inch. But if a crazy guy is coming at you, sometimes you need to decide whether to stand your ground and hope the crazy guy isn't as crazy as he seems.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

243. Yep. I agree with this.

This is a game of chicken. And if neither side in a game of chicken moves, neither one comes out looking very good.

The what ifs do lay at the feet of the GOP however, and if the USA...we go over the cliff then we will be seriously screwn.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. Remember when all those anti-war groups tried to FORCE and end to the war?

[Tigress DEM]

79. We "Forced" the administration to listen to our demands. Covered under free speech from what I know.

BUT they FORCED a DELAY by subverting the process against their constituents wishes.

THEY are REQUIRED to uphold the laws they enact and work to amend them or replace them when their side is in power.

FAILURE TO UPHOLD THE LAW by SHUTTING DOWN the Government is like holding random people in jail and then deciding NOT to give them water or food because you want to renegotiate prisoners health benefits because you don't think prisoners should have any right to medical care.

IT is causing people to die as we speak. There is a FORCE to their actions that moves beyond their stupid, petty words and tantrums. Being an elected official is AN HONOR and should not be SHAT UPON like this. It's a DUTY that they truly disregard as well as ignoring the wishes of their constituents.

YES anti-war groups gather in FORCE and project a WILL onto the consciousness of all who see them gathered, but demanding JUSTICE, demanding a sane and rational response instead of constant war isn't the same as conspiring to commit injustice and calling it politics as usual.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. Congress can de-fund any law. There is no requirement they fund a program or war.

[Tigress DEM]

83. Yeah, and they tried that what 40 times?

BUT THIS TIME they are holding the WHOLE country hostage. They are refusing to pay for ANYTHING if they can't have the one thing they want repealed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. And they can try 40 times more.

They are refusing to pay for ANYTHING if they can't have the one thing they want repealed

Then, how about separate bills to fund different departments so, say, NIH can get to work while Treasury and Energy and Defense haggle over scraps?

[Tigress DEM]

99. How about they just do what is good for the country and quit pissing around?

IF they had any meaningful alternatives other than give the rich more money and take everything away that allows poor people an equal opportunity to work toward success, then that would be one thing. But they don't so all they can do is tear everyone else's work apart and I'm sick of it.

Real Republicans used to have ideas that were different and actual fiscal responsibility includes raising the debt ceiling because you put all that debt on the card, so you need to sign the note that you will pay for it. The Bush era indulgence of running up the credit card and then leaving it on the table and making someone else pick up the tab is just wrong.

The Tea Baggers kissing on the rich and watching them destroy the middle class is pathetic. These folks are BOUGHT and PAID for and putting through legislation that disproportionately damages the poor and middle class. It still SAYS that Government Officials should avoid the "appearance of wrong doing" which DEMs read as don't do it if it could damage the reputation of the Government even if it isn't technically against the law. And which Tea Baggers and many rethugs read as "don't get caught and if you do, lie like a pro, refute, repeat and distract with other (non)issues."

The honest definition of sedition after Brandenberg in 1969 is:

n. The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.
n. Dissension; division; schism.


from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English


THEY are trying to drown the Government in a bathtub. THEY are directing everyone's hatred at Obama, our legal President and Commander in Chief of our military. (Have you SEEN the ASSASSINATION tweets out there?) They are resisting lawful authority. THEY have only "compromised" when they made DEMs give them what they want. They have given NOTHING without getting MUCH in return for the slightest necessary things.

You are arguing with ME about going back to pre 1974 increments for inflation and combined debt ceiling for all budgets? Rearrange deck furniture on the Titanic much?

IF they really want that, then they can put it to a vote, but ONCE their sessions are DONE and the LAST Vote out the Door is to raise the Debt Ceiling and come back for round 2 afterward, then JUST GET'ER DONE. Sheeeeese, if I pissed off as much on my job as the teabaggers do, I'd be SO fired. GONE completely and all mention of me would be scathing. They tried, they lost. Oh well, move on. Come back and get their butts whipped again and again and again, that's fine.


BUT THEY ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY. THEY ARE HEARTLESS AND GUTLESS and juvenile with a side of villages missing many idiots for desert. IF they were REALLY SOLVING ANY PROBLEMS for the general population, I'd be happy to see them fighting tooth and nail for every voting opportunity, but THEY STAND FOR NOTHING BUT GREED.


THEY ARE SEDITIOUS, COWARDLY BASTARDS ALL and you can defend them all you want, but the facts are the facts. (OK maybe their mothers were legally wed and they are not technically all bastards in the strictest of terms, but the rest stands.)

GOOD NIGHT.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

137. If dissension is sedition then democracy is sedition

Democracy is about politically resolving differences between mutually dissenting parties.

[Tigress DEM]

222. Sound bite.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

236. Still true and you're stuck with that fact.

[Tigress DEM]

223. You have GOT to be on the other side. You blast MY dissension and defend theirs.

I wrote a long list of reasons why their behavior is seditious and threatens the government of the Nation that THOSE people TOOK an oath to defend.

YOU come up with a sound bite.

Bet I can find it on a right wing blog.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

234. No one has come anywhere close to suggesting you should be prosecuted

On the contrary, your. speech -- even though mind-numbingly dumb -- is protected by the very constitution you ignore.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Yes it does. It says so right there in the cited statute.

[LaydeeBug]

11. Um...no it doesn't.

18 USC § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

US Code
Notes
Updates

Current through Pub. L. 113-36. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Oh good grief

18 USC § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

US Code
Notes
Updates

Current through Pub. L. 113-36. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Every single clause is predicated on the use of force.

[LaydeeBug]

16. Oh Geeze oh whiz...

They are FORCING a shutdown.

But nice try.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. OK, so what about the other 16 times that has happened in US history?

It wasn't sedition then.

[LaydeeBug]

34. Oh Geeze.

each time is different, since, well, they're different times. That's a Yogie Bera, "you're welcome".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. So in other words

You reserve the right to unilaterally declare when it's sedition and when it's OK for your team to do it.

[Tigress DEM]

108. NO - What is different are people like the Koch Brothers being SO close to OWNING the Government.

It's not a political disagreement that makes their behavior seditious, it's the DAMAGE they are willing to inflict every step of the way when they should be about the business of creating laws that DO something instead of just MUCKING up the Legislative sessions with all these pissing contests.

It's about a concentrated effort on the part of these people to PREVENT laws from actually getting past and enacted to repair a fragile economy that was TANKED by the last administration and deregulation. It's about their stirring up unrest at every turn and for every reason and pretty much calling open season on reasonable people by telling everyone to take their guns everywhere and turning up the flames of rhetoric so high the people can barely talk to their loved ones anymore.

It isn't about States wanting their own rights, it's about Texas wanting to secede from the Union.

It's NOT just this one little Yeah or Nay vote - IT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING BAG OF CRAZY that comes with it.

UNDERSTAND?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

135. And some RWers see communists behind every tree

According to your methods they should be allowed to act like you.

[Tigress DEM]

219. I'm talking about specific, behavior not a broad swath and McCarthy like persecution.

I'm talking about seriously looking at the legal aspects of sedition and applying it to today's world and the planned actions leading to this shutdown from the day Obama took his second term. There was a group that met as soon as Obama was re-elected and started talking about strategies to take him down even if the country came with it.

That isn't politics as usual or simple political rivalry. It may or may not be seditious, but this whole "It ain't gonna happen so don't think about it" attitude leads me to believe you may be a ringer and not a real DEM.

IF any of our DEMs ever try to DESTROY the government from within, I'd hope the rest of US would deal with it ourselves and be right there watching them get their consequences for getting overblown with power.

What do you mean, "ACT like me?" I'm simply talking about an idea of how to legally resolve this issue of a PROVEN obstructionist Congress that has done real damage to the economy and to people in this nation. I WISH they would act like me and only consider reasonable, legal methods of removing Congress Critters who refuse to really represent their constituents.

80% of the population is surviving on 7% of the income of this country. 1% have 40% of that income. What we would really consider middle class is around the top 10-20% Below that people are struggling and unable to get ahead and even making ends meet. People are DYING without healthcare and going to food shelves in record numbers because selfish people have BOUGHT elected officials and "ALEC" anyone wrote laws for those officials to present and get pushed through as law.

AND you want me to give a shit for the poor little misunderstood rethugs and stop talking about something that might hurt their little feelings? You are so lucky you weren't on DU during the wild days. Man this is some TAME stuff compared to when *ush was in office. You have NO IDEA.

[Tigress DEM]

107. MAYBE because the other 16 times it was for defensible reasons.

MAYBE the other times Congress was standing FOR something instead of just pouting about losing a particular vote over and over.

MAYBE the other times Congress was trying to get something REAL accomplished not just making more money for their Corporate overlords.

Maybe the other times were also sedition, but weren't prosecuted. We'll all have to read up on the other ocassions to sincerely address them here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

136. Or maybe you're just raving up and down this thread.

You want your civil war so bad, go out and grab yourself a GOPer congresscritter. Obviously Obama isn't going to do it for you. The liberty of the nation for all time rests upon your shoulders. Don't let your country down.

[Tigress DEM]

220. Says the guy who had 12 of the 78 posts before I ever got in on the discussion.

I'm not raving but you sure are starting to sound pretty nasty.

I'm a Grandmother man, I've seen kids having hissy fits because you tell them something they don't want to hear. You have NO RIGHT to pretend you know who I am or what I want and disparage me in this fashion. If the sarcastic tripe you wrote below is the best you can do, maybe you should consider not writing so much, thinking a little bit more.

We are supposed to be on the same team and you have every right to your own opinion and to disagree with mine, but watch your step dude, your bordering on nasty and that doesn't sell the "sweetness and light" you're peddling. All the Kumbuya with the group of elected officials who are officially abusing their power - NOT with this one vote, but by the whole way they funneled us into this mock crises to GET this vote.


Almost would consider this a personal attack, but I'll be the bigger person and let you off with a warning.

You want your civil war so bad, go out and grab yourself a GOPer congresscritter. Obviously Obama isn't going to do it for you. The liberty of the nation for all time rests upon your shoulders. Don't let your country down.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

241. I'm not a man

watch your step dude

Or?

officially abusing their power

Being a jackass is not illegal.

let you off with a warning

Or?

You want your civil war so bad

I'm the one arguing nothing that is going on is worth panicking over or resorting to force of arms. Perhaps if you did less raving and more reading you would have figured that out 40 posts ago.

Obviously Obama isn't going to do it

Which is why people should stop screaming "Sedition!" when there isn't any. All it does is feed needless violent impulses.

[NuclearDem]

18. Which is not the same thing as "by force."

[LaydeeBug]

37. yes it is.

[NuclearDem]

40. No, it's not.

[LaydeeBug]

42. Yes, it is

[NuclearDem]

43. No, it's not.

[LaydeeBug]

45. Yes it is.

[NuclearDem]

51. No, it's not.

[LaydeeBug]

53. Yes it is.

[NuclearDem]

55. No, it's not.

[LaydeeBug]

56. nt

[sibelian]

61. .....

....





...


YES IT IS!!!!




kidding, kidding, kidding...

[BOG PERSON]

73. lol

[Richardo]

203. ^^ THREAD WINNER RIGHT HERE

[GreenStormCloud]

29. Your understanding of the legal English is poor.

"by force" is used to mean "force of arms" such as guns, swords, tanks, etc. I haven't seen any military involved in this yet. Your rhetoric is overblown.

[LaydeeBug]

35. Um...perhaps not

We can let judges decide what 'by force' means. You deciding for everyone is the poor legal english example.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. "We can let judges decide what 'by force' means."

Just so long as you approve the judge has the proper understanding before hearing the case, right?

[LaydeeBug]

44. No. Just let them decide, and not YOU.

No straw man necessary.

I edited this.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. They don't get to decide because congresscritters cannot be arrested and tried

for being congresscritters. You don't get to put someone on trial every time they decline to give you what you want.

[LaydeeBug]

50. Wow. This isn't them 'not giving us what we want'

For you to suggest that's all it is demonstrates the problem.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. You still can't have congresscritters arrested and tried every time you want something

Which is really all you're advocating for. They have violated no law despite your unilateral declarations to the contrary.

[Tigress DEM]

118. There IS room in this law, you are just taking ONE word and defending their abuse of the process.

Actual definitions have been posted. Judges would be the ones to read the law and it's intent and meaning against an actual action brought into the court.

YOU want to wipe away the idea of sedition as anything but violence because you fear the rethugs will turn it around and use it against us. I get that.

BUT you are ignoring EVERYTHING ELSE. Their admissions that they excluded people from voting not because of race but because they were likely to vote DEM. Their constant statements that they want a small government, small enough to drown in a bathtub. They are OBVIOUSLY empowered and owned by their Corporate Masters and want people under them to squash so they can feel better about their shame.

This vote is only the latest opportunity to do damage. The relentless attempts to prevent actual work from being done in the legislature is what is wrong here. Their disregard of the voice of the people.

Is it illegal to "accidentally" drop a vase off a 15 story balcony? No.

BUT if the INTENT of that action is to drop it ON a person walking underneath so you can kill them, then, yes, it's illegal and called murder.

These folks aren't just having a difference of opinion, they are out for blood and to trash the Government's ability to Govern the People of the US.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

133. That one word is the entire point.

You might as well be arguing for murder charges for someone having killed your inner child.

[Tigress DEM]

116. Tell that to Bill Clinton

[Nuclear Unicorn]

134. When was Clinton arrested by the police and held for trial?

[Tigress DEM]

221. Are you so young that you don't remember White Water, Impeachment and Special Prosecutor Ken Starr?

MY reply to your POST #49

You don't get to put someone on trial every time they decline to give you what you want.

Was about how Clinton was constantly dogged nearly every day of his 2 terms through legal means, excessive though they might be.

We haven't spent the last 9 years attacking rethugs at every chance. We've done a lot to bridge the gap and make nice.

I have been the QUEEN of "don't go down to their level or we become them" but IF I have legal recourse with a law that used to be draconian but now has a high standard of proof to it, then I don't see what any body's problem IS with that UNLESS they just want the other side to get away with all the crap they have been pulling.

[onenote]

59. Even if "by force" meant what you claim it means (and it doesn't),

your argument fails because the repubs, while making a bad policy decision, are not "forcing" the government to close any more than the Democrats are (or the President would if he vetoed a CR that defunded or delayed the ACA as he has said he would).

The House had passed bills that would have funded the government but make changes (ranging from defunding to delay etc) in the ACA. The Senate has passed bills that would fund the government and not make any changes in the ACA. Neither one, as a legal matter, has done anything that they aren't entitled to do. Neither one is "forcing" the other not to go along with their bill. The solution to this problems will not be found in any criminal statute, it is found in the political process.

[LaydeeBug]

149. see post #124. It's not wrong. But thanks. nt

[onenote]

153. So did Bill Clinton commit "sedition" when he vetoed a CR and "forced" a shutdown?

Was President Obama committing sedition (or at least threatening to do so) when he said he'd veto a CR that passed the Senate and House but included provisions delaying or defunding or otherwise screwing around with the ACA?

Explain how those are not sedition, but the repubs passing one CR and the Senate passing a different one makes every member of the House guilty of sedition.

And while you're at it, can you explain what you think would happen if the Attorney General ordered US Marshalls to arrest and jail every repub member of the House (other than creating 200 plus new "martyrs&quot . How would the CR get passed since there would not be the constitutionally required quorum for the House to pass any legislation. Would you have the courts mandate that members of Congress vote a certain way on a certain bill or face jail? I've heard of countries in which "legislators" who vote the "wrong" way are jailed so every vote comes out unanimously. I don't think of them as democracies and I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in such a place.

[Ranchemp.]

158. Hate to correct you, but it's U.S. Marshal's and as a member of that

hallowed org., we wouldn't obey an illegal order like that. We have no authority to arrest Congresspersons for their votes on matters involving the funding of the govt.

[onenote]

169. I need a DU spell check!!

But as I think is obvious, we're in agreement that those calling for the arrest of the entire republican House delegation are just being ridiculous and haven't given the slightest bit of thought to what they're asking.

[Ranchemp.]

170. Total agreement,

and I and my fellow Marshal's would never obey such an illegal order, no matter who issued said order, and, I believe, the Capitol Police and Secret Service would have something to say as they are the ones tasked to protecting the govt and govt buildings.

[Tigress DEM]

228. NO. He didn't premeditatively PLAN to use it as a tool and the veto is his right.

Because all the DEMs are asking is that laws that have been already passed, already judged by the Supreme Court to be Constitutional not be HELD up with a procedural tactic.

Because planning to AVOID the issue and stall INTO a Government Shutdown to GAIN political leverage is such a BLATANT tactic that it offends the entire idea of Democracy.

Because responding to that kind of threat by asking for a clean resolution and a simple vote on the issue at hand and tabling the rest isn't the same as DEMANDING your pet rider trump the rights of every other citizen in the US.

CLEAR AS DAY what the difference is to anyone who has ever been at a table where Robert's Rules of Order are established.

[Tigress DEM]

226. Post title is false equivilancy. Post 35 doesn't define force-says let judges not a DU poster decide

The rest of your argument is actually ok.

Holding elected officials responsible for criminal acts IS part of the political process. It is part of our right to redress right out of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

Maybe you are right that "sedition" is too hot of a term, but there has been plenty of malfeasance going on. Many of these people should be recalled simply because they do not have what it takes to do the job they were sent to do and are making a bloody mess of it.

In Minnesota, Michelle Bachmann (even before she went over the ledge) was potentially in danger of being recalled. She spent more time running for President than serving her constituency. She put up NO laws and was unavailable to her constituents consistently while out campaigning for President. Then she sponsored 1 bill. UNDO the energy saving adopted by the State in promoting and using CSF lightbulbs to set an example for greener behavior.

HUGE salary and THIS is what she produces?

Maybe just recalling those whose political track record indicates a complete lack of interest in the good of their country or the process of Democracy, where their hate speech and repeating of propaganda AGAINST the state even when it's been refuted by evidence is a better idea.



Incompetence, premeditation to obstruct Democratic process and Malice we can prove.

[onenote]

232. Hate to break it to you: members of Congress can't be "recalled"

See, this thing called the Constitution keeps getting in the way of all your grandiose plans to respond to the repubs idiocy with more idiocy. That's what so cool about the Constitution. And with respect to your argument that Clinton's veto of a CR, which resulted in a shutdown not being "premeditated" -- what do you think happened --he slipped on his pen and accidentally signed a veto order? He knew what the likely consequences of his action was. As he stated at the time: "I am returning herewith without my approval H.J. 115, the Second Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 1996. This legislation would raise Medicare premiums on senior citizens, and deeply cut education and environmental protection, as the cost for keeping the government running".

And yes it was Clinton's right, and is President Obama's right to use his veto power, even on a CR. Just as it was and is the right of the House and each of its members to vote for a particular CR or against a particular CR and the right of the Senate to vote for a particular CR or against a particular CR. And it is the right of every member of Congress to propose the repeal or modification of any piece of legislation. That's the whole point: no one has acted outside the boundaries of their Constitutionally-granted rights. Civics 101.

[Samantha]

124. Against my better judgment, I am going to jump in here

Here is what the dictionary says:

https://www.google.com/#q=definition+force

force
fôrs/
noun
noun: force

1.
strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement.
"he was thrown backward by the force of the explosion"
synonyms: strength, power, energy, might, effort, exertion; More
impact, pressure, weight, impetus
"he pushed with all his force"
antonyms: weakness
Physics
an influence tending to change the motion of a body or produce motion or stress in a stationary body. The magnitude of such an influence is often calculated by multiplying the mass of the body by its acceleration.
a person or thing regarded as exerting power or influence.
plural noun: forces
"he might still be a force for peace and unity"
synonyms: agency, power, influence, instrument, vehicle, means More
"a force for good"
used with a number as a measure of wind strength on the Beaufort scale.
"a force-nine gale"
2.
coercion or compulsion, esp. with the use or threat of violence.
"they ruled by law and not by force"
synonyms: coercion, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, harassment, intimidation, threats; More
informalarm-twisting, bullying tactics
"they used force to achieve their aims"
3.
mental or moral strength or power.
"the force of popular opinion"
the state of being in effect or valid.
"the law came into force in January"
synonyms: effective, in operation, operative, operational, in action, valid More
"the law is now in force"
the powerful effect of something.
"the force of her writing is undiminished"
synonyms: cogency, potency, weight, effectiveness, soundness, validity, strength, power, significance, influence, authority; More
informalpunch;
formalefficacy
"the force of the argument"
antonyms: weakness
4.
an organized body of military personnel or police.
"a soldier in a UN peacekeeping force"
synonyms: body, body of people, group, outfit, party, team; More
detachment, unit, squad;
border patrol;
informalbunch
"a peace-keeping force"
troops and weaponry.
plural noun: forces
"concealment from enemy forces"
a group of people brought together and organized for a particular activity.
"a sales force"
informal
a police department.
noun: the force
5.
Baseball
a force-out.
a situation in which a force-out is possible.

verb
verb: force; 3rd person present: forces; past tense: forced; past participle: forced; gerund or present participle: forcing

1.
make a way through or into by physical strength; break open by force.
"they broke into Fred's house and forced every cupboard door with ax or crowbar"
synonyms: break open, burst open, knock down, smash down, kick in More
"the door had to be forced"
drive or push into a specified position or state using physical strength or against resistance.
"she forced her feet into flat leather sandals"
synonyms: propel, push, thrust, shove, drive, press, pump More
"water was forced through a hole"
achieve or bring about (something) by coercion or effort.
"Sabine forced a smile"
push or strain (something) to the utmost.
"she knew if she forced it she would rip it"
artificially hasten the development or maturity of (a plant).
synonyms: extract, elicit, exact, extort, wrest, wring, drag, squeeze More
"they forced a confession out of the kids"
2.
make (someone) do something against their will.
"she was forced into early retirement"
synonyms: compel, coerce, make, constrain, oblige, impel, drive, pressurize, pressure, press, push, press-gang, bully, dragoon, bludgeon;
informalput the screws on, lean on, twist someone's arm
"he was forced to pay"
rape (a woman).
Baseball
put out (a runner), or cause (a runner) to be put out, at the base to which they are advancing when they are forced to run on a batted ball.
"I was forced at second base as the first half of a double play"
(in cards) make a play or bid that compels another player to make (a particular response); make a play or bid that compels (another player) to make such a response.
"East could force declarer to ruff another spade"

Origin

It looks to me like the itemization under "verb" hands the argument to you.

As I said, it was against my better judgment to enter into this debate, but I felt forced, meaning compelled, to do so since I felt very strongly you were correct.

Okay, I am out of here now.

Sam

[LaydeeBug]

148. Thanks Samantha

I appreciate it.

[Tigress DEM]

72. DEFINITION OF FORCE - VERB #2 Make (someone) do something against their will.

verb
verb: force; 3rd person present: forces; past tense: forced; past participle: forced; gerund or present participle: forcing

1.
make a way through or into by physical strength; break open by force.
"they broke into Fred's house and forced every cupboard door with ax or crowbar"
synonyms: break open, burst open, knock down, smash down, kick in More
"the door had to be forced"
drive or push into a specified position or state using physical strength or against resistance.
"she forced her feet into flat leather sandals"
synonyms: propel, push, thrust, shove, drive, press, pump More
"water was forced through a hole"
achieve or bring about (something) by coercion or effort.
"Sabine forced a smile"
push or strain (something) to the utmost.
"she knew if she forced it she would rip it"
artificially hasten the development or maturity of (a plant).
2.
make (someone) do something against their will.
"she was forced into early retirement"
synonyms: compel, coerce, make, constrain, oblige, impel, drive, pressurize, pressure, press, push, press-gang, bully, dragoon, bludgeon;
synonyms: extract, elicit, exact, extort, wrest, wring, drag, squeeze

noun
noun: force

1.
strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement.
"he was thrown backward by the force of the explosion"
synonyms: strength, power, energy, might, effort, exertion; More
impact, pressure, weight, impetus
"he pushed with all his force"
antonyms: weakness
Physics
an influence tending to change the motion of a body or produce motion or stress in a stationary body. The magnitude of such an influence is often calculated by multiplying the mass of the body by its acceleration.
a person or thing regarded as exerting power or influence.
plural noun: forces
"he might still be a force for peace and unity"
synonyms: agency, power, influence, instrument, vehicle, means More
"a force for good"
used with a number as a measure of wind strength on the Beaufort scale.
"a force-nine gale"
2.
coercion or compulsion, esp. with the use or threat of violence.
"they ruled by law and not by force"
synonyms: coercion, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, harassment, intimidation,
"they forced a confession out of the kids"

[Tigress DEM]

75. This Government was SHUT DOWN by force of willfulness of the extremists in Congress.

The DID COMPEL AND COERCE ALL their party members to PRESSURE the DEMs to delay the ACA with the THREAT of the SHUTDOWN. BIG MONEY OBLIGED them to vote this way to satisfy the needs of the few at the expense of the many.

The WILL of the People was PUSHED aside because we DID elect the folks who actually PASSED the ACA in 2009. It is a fully processes LAW that was approved with many concessions already given to the Rethugs BEFORE it was passed in 2009.

WHO WANTED THE SHUTDOWN? Only the few who thought they could get their way by BULLYING everyone else into voting their way.

SEDITION is the reality, get used to the facts. THEY perverted the process to the detriment of their constituents. It would be illegal if I did something like this as a small business to my stockholders and CONGRESS should not be above the law.

[NuclearDem]

76. By force means by force of arms.

Legislative and political bullying is not force of arms. The GOP didn't literally put guns to the heads of members of Congress to keep them from voting.

[Tigress DEM]

82. NO it does not say force of arms - it says force. Period.

[NuclearDem]

84. For the umpteenth time, abusing the power of the purse to exploit a completely arbitrary concept

That never should have been a thing in the first place is not seditious conspiracy. That's irresponsible, suicidal governance, but not sedition.

The only successful prosecutions for seditious conspiracy in the 20th century have been against people plotting violent insurrection and acts of terrorism.

And before that, sedition laws were used to throw socialists and anti-war activists in prison because they threatened the corporate powers and imperialist warmongers of the early 20th century, so be really careful how you start throwing that word around.

[duffyduff]

91. No, it doesn't. Nice try. Look up the word "sedition." n/t

[Tigress DEM]

123. He must be too busy Duff, I found some clarification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
<snip>
In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.

The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).

Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

139. According to your post you're inciting sedition against the lawful authority of congress.

[Tigress DEM]

224. Asking that people stop seditious behavior is sedition. Pointing out racisim is racist.

You sire are a troll.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

235. They are using their constitutional authority no differently than previous congresses

in the previous 16 shutdowns. You would use force to abolish the political process. That puts you outside the law.

[DonCoquixote]

77. with all due respect

With all the mass shooting that just happen to be done by right wing types, and the fact they love showing up to rallies with guns displayed, the Tea Party has already threatened to use lethal force at the very least.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. Mass shootings?

[Tigress DEM]

106. ??? What you live under a rock?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mass-shootings-central-american-history-article-1.1457514

[Nuclear Unicorn]

132. Which one of those was political, per the other poster's comment?

[Tigress DEM]

105. Yes, every one of these who are trying to scuttle Obamabcare are also advocating NO Gun Control.

[Tigress DEM]

86. Sedition Act of 1918 --- YUP, the rethugs ARE DEEPLY seditious

BACK in 1918 you could get 5-20 years for BAD MOUTHING the Government in a time of war, possibly affecting the sale of war bonds... much less shutting down the entire Federal Government because you lost the election and don't have the votes to make the laws ALL work in your favor.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub.L. 65–150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds. [1]

It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt. Those convicted under the act generally received sentences of imprisonment for 5 to 20 years



BUT.... we dream the impossible dream


Congress repealed the Sedition Act on December 13, 1920



SO is the current definition from the Espionage Act?

[dairydog91]

88. The Sedition Act is no longer law, and it's almost certainly unconstitutional.

Even the most conservative Justice today is far more of a First Amendment radical than any justice who was on the court at the time the Sedition Act existed. The WWI habit of locking up "radical" political candidates like Eugene Debs is a grotesque blot on the American legal system, and even then they weren't locking up sitting members of Congress for mere political opposition.

much less shutting down the entire Federal Government because you lost the election and don't have the votes to make the laws ALL work in your favor.

Congress has the power of the purse. You can't wiggle your way out of that reality, and the founders who designed the Constitutional structure were well aware that they were giving the power to Congress to intimidate the other branches by threatening to cut off funding (See Federalist #58). Congress can shut down the government by turning off the money spigot. Congress members will probably not be reelected if they vote to do so, but it is in their power to refuse to pass legislation. There has never been such a thing under American law as a law which a legislator is legally obligated to vote for.

[Tigress DEM]

102. Yeah, I said that.

BUT.... we dream the impossible dream


Congress repealed the Sedition Act on December 13, 1920

BUT THEIR behavior is WAAAAAY past that and into current legal definitions. THEY are KNOWINGLY carrying a legislative battle beyond a point of reason into an area that damages the government's ability to follow through with their duties to the people of the US and threatens to wreck havoc on the world economy when the legislative issue has been voted on repeatedly.

Enough, for now.

I'm not asking them to vote FOR anything. I'm just asking them to quit slipping riders into a vote that doesn't have the time for this kind of bs.

[NuclearDem]

150. Oh my dear God.

First people defending the Patriot Act, now the goddamn Sedition Act which was used almost exclusively to jail pacifists, draft resistors, and socialists.

The Sedition Act was repealed, and the Brandenburg decision thankfully made it impossible for anything like it to ever exist again. Defending that fascist tool of early 20th century imperialism is unfuckingacceptable and you should be ashamed for doing so.

[Ranchemp.]

154. Never thought I would see this shit on DU.

Using the Patriot Act, an abomination from the Bush Jr. Admin., to justify arresting political opponents?
What next? Torture to get a confession from these jackwagons?
We have truly become our own worse enemies if and when we embrace this crap, which I'll never do.

[Tigress DEM]

225. Look, dear, ONLY when people take it to the exteme where it could actually topple the Government.

DON'T you get it?

ALL the extreme planning that went into getting us in this mock crises so the government could be shut down.


I'm asking to look at behavior that isn't just dissenting opinion, it's PREVENTING government operation not by a simple getting carried away and running out of time, BUT planning it from the start. There were a small group of people who met and decided a radical course of action to prevent the majority from getting any laws passed and any work done so that Obama would be a one term President.

I'm talking about specific incidents where people are really demolishing Democracy from within. People who have no qualms about rigging elections, preventing legitimate voters from voting... these aren't conspiracy theories. They have been admitted as real evidence in courts of law and people have gone to jail for certain other crimes.

SO YOU HATE THE WORD SEDITION and the law.... OK Is it TREASON THEN? NO they didn't quite step over that line did they?

I'm talking intent and premeditation ... again remember the VASE on the 15th floor balcony.

IF someone innocently knocks it off with no premeditation and it crashes to the pavement below injuring no person and is simply ruined, it is a shame, but not a crime.

IF someone studies the layout and wind factors, talks about knocking it over and teaching someone they hate a lesson for 4 years and then one day it happens exactly as they said it would, it is called murder.

[NuclearDem]

3. And advocating jailing political opponents is against everything a liberal should stand for.

[LaydeeBug]

48. Pretending a crime isn't a crime just because the perpetrator is your political opponent isn't, no

matter how many fits you want to throw.

[NuclearDem]

58. You still haven't proven criminal activity.

All you've proven is that the Republicans are assholes who shouldn't be trusted with governance, not that they're attempting an overthrow of the government by force.

[duffyduff]

92. Nice try defending fascists like the Kochs.

I can't believe I am reading such tripe here.

[Tigress DEM]

103. Someone breaks the law, they break the law. Sedition is against the law in it's current form.

It's no less seditious because they don't have militias with guns present.

Real sedition is attempting to damage the Government even if your actions are short of treason.

Preventing the Government from functioning and aiming to blow the credit rating for the whole country over a law that has already been passed and whose SAVINGS are part of the current budget and would RAISE costs if repealed, requiring even MORE cuts or TAX HIKES just to get back to where we started is DUMB.

[Ranchemp.]

104. It seems Eric Holder's Department of Justice disagrees with you,

otherwise charges would have already been filed.
This whole notion that the repubs in the House are committing sedition is ridiculous at best and ignorant at worse.

[Tigress DEM]

110. Right, so Bush isn't a war criminal just because he got away with it.

Nice try.

[Ranchemp.]

112. The bottom line is that no one in any position of authority is even talking sedition.

Because sedition isn't a factor in this whole screwed up mess.
The only ones talking sedition, are people on chat boards, like this one.

You may not like it, but there is no sedition going on, just incredible stupidity by the repubs, which, last time I looked, is not against any law.

[Tigress DEM]

115. Listen 63 posts, stupid is just their act. They are a well organized wrecking crew.

They are funded to the hilt, and yes, they may be stupid enough to be lap dogs for the corporate elite, but the DAMAGE they are doing is ON PURPOSE and INTENTIONALLY DAMAGING something is not excused by ignorance.

You or I accidentally back into a utility pole and we are going to be charged with the crime and ordered to pay for the damage. It may come out of our insurance policy, but the restitution will be exacted.

THESE guys intentionally drove us off a fiscal cliff, continued to vote for more deregulation and have been after any program that helps people in poverty because poor people tend to vote DEM. They are in a position to run up BILLIONS in debt and they don't care WHO dies because of it.

They will sink our credit rating so that only the rich with their money in the Caymens or the Chinese can bail US out. That would mean NO MIDDLE CLASS. Rich / Poor. Owners / Slaves or Sharecroppers or whatever stupid word they come up with to describe if you don't have no money, you don't have any rights.

YOU knuckleheads are the dumbasses watching the iceberg approaching the Titanic and saying, "No, no, it's not the Captain's fault. He's just stupid and we couldn't have known."

LOOK. I am willing to admit that many of the Republicans voted against their better judgement, and cut them some slack. I only want those whose intent to damage the government can be proven, to be actually charged with sedition, but I want this discussion to be had because there is some merit to it whether or not the suits follow through with it or whether YOU agree or not.

It's a free country. Don't like the conversation, find another post.

[Ranchemp.]

117. Now it's 64 posts.

Is that supposed to mean something?
You can rant and rave to your hearts content, it's still not sedition.
Who said anything about not liking the conversation except you?

[Tigress DEM]

120. You're new, maybe you don't know a lot of the history we've discussed here.

Some people troll these threads and pretend to have legitimate discussions, while trying to support the actions of the other party. Newbies aren't automatically suspect, but who knows? Time will tell. I'd prefer you weren't but life is what it is and I'm a realist.

You can deny all you want and it is still up to a court of law to determine sedition and I believe there is a case for it.

You only seem to like objecting to what is being discussed and invalidating other people's opinions. So if you think there is no case for sedition, why don't you find a discussion that is actually something you can support?

[Ranchemp.]

122. And no court of law is even going to entertain a motion of sedition,

and I rather doubt any prosecutor will even consider filing sedition charges.
Here's what I support, voting these jackwagons out of office and getting good progressives elected who won't pull this crap.

Don't hold your breath waiting for any sedition charges to be levied.

[Tigress DEM]

125. Sure, 2014 is a given as long as we have enough Election Judges to watch for tampering.

People said not to expect the war in Iraq to ever end either, but with enough people protesting eventually it became too hot of a potato for them to handle.

I don't even know if any formal sedition charges need to be levied, but outing their behavior, turning up the heat under their lard butts and making them OWN their intent to destroy the government is possibly damaging enough to make them stop such completely overt and radical attempts to derail Democracy by playing games with the power they gained upon being elected.

If enough people on the Liberal side of the isle aren't afraid of having legal discussions that could take these critters out before they can do more damage, then the Media finds the stories worth pursuing as well and may even find REAL cause to remove some of these from office. Only people who are corrupt with corporate donations and have no care about common people can act this way. IF they can keep the focus on how they aren't doing anything "illegal" then we mistakenly think they are "innocent". HAH.

If even only ONE gets charged with it and goes to trial, it would ripple through the system and keep them watching their behavior.

I said it to someone earlier, it's about intent.

IF someone accidentally knocks a vase off a 15 story balcony, it's a shame, but not a crime.

BUT if it can be proved they practiced the move and timed it to land on someone walking by on the street who everyone knew they wanted dead, then it is all about intent and it's called murder.

They have been so open in their hatred of Government and Liberals, not just our policies, but US. Carry a gun - everywhere. Hate them Commie Liberals. Wear a badge that belittles the Secretary of State and former First Lady. Whine constantly about what a bummer it is that no one has assassinated Obama. They are USING the Government AGAINST the majority of the population of America. Trying to deny US the right to vote and rigging elections. Flooding the airwaves with hatred and misinformation.

Maybe we need a better charge than sedition for people trying to destroy America from inside out. But for now, I'm toying with it and I still think there is merit to it.

Peace

[Llewlladdwr]

217. "63 posts"?

Ah geez, the post count snobs are back...

[Tigress DEM]

218. Well, it was actually my way of giving they guy a break.

Some people come in new and may start behavior that gets them labeled as trolls, but I like to give people a chance.

I'd have rather just welcomed him, but we were already engaged in debate so that didn't happen.

I'm not a snob by any means, but I think people have to earn their cred on DU by bringing their opinion without a lot of ripping others. A "little" back and forth here and there once in awhile is fun, but we got to watch it so it doesn't get misunderstood.

After all DU has been for a lot of us one of the only places we can really have these kind of discussions.

[onenote]

4. How many of these stupid threads are going to be posted?

[Tigress DEM]

111. If you don't like them, don't read them. No one here is holding a gun to your head. nt

[onenote]

141. Thanks, but no thanks. I think I'll continue to respond to them

in the hope that some readers will realize how ridiculous these posts are.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. It is amazing how many DUers want to establish a dictatorship.

The ONLY way to defend your own political liberties to to also defend the politial liberties of your opponents.

[clydefrand]

8. What the repubs are doing is not politial liberty

They are trying to kill this country. Can you even begin to imagine which repub will be selected to head the new dictatorship?
If YOU like liberty, then you had better think long and hard about your stance on this!!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. So GOTV in 2014

[GreenStormCloud]

27. Yes, it is their political liberty.

Political liberty means they get to disagree with us and they get to vote that way too.

[AZ Progressive]

10. The political liberty of holding the nation hostage?

[pinboy3niner]

19. So you'd charge them with what--criminal metaphor?

No one is literally holding anybody hostage.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. I'd throw the book at them.

And by book I mean thesaurus.

[pinboy3niner]

23. *SNORT*

[LaydeeBug]

14. This is the law of the land...it is NOT establishing a dictatorship. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. Except when you grotesquely distort the law for personal gain.

[Tigress DEM]

128. WHAT personal gain? Preventing elected officials from abusing their power is our obligation.

It's the DESTRUCTIVE Nature and DESTRUCTIVE Intent in their handling of this entire Legislative Session that led to this stand off and their constant non-acceptance of a law that has been passed so they could make this huge mess and try to blame it on Obama.

Running the country off the cliff, into financial ruin, ripping the Constitution to shreds because they hate the poor... where does it end? How much corruption will we tolerate before we put their behavior up to the light and watch all of them scatter like roaches?




and... we have to talk about your sig line**.
If you advocate nudity, where in God's name are you concealing what you carry?
Sounds a tad uncomfortable to me, but to each his own.


**Protecting your right to public nudity and carrying concealed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

138. Concerning my sig line

It's humor. You should try some.

[Tigress DEM]

229. I have been accused of being humorous on occasion

I'm not unfamiliar with the genre.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

24. Clearly the republicans should be allowed to run the economy into the ditch...again.

When it happened in 08 the excuse "nobody could have foreseen" was used, but now this fiasco has been "foreseen" and planned, and any pain or long lasting suffering on the markets or Americans should be considered malice aforethought.

Nobody wants a dictatorship let alone DUers. The GOP and their backs may, and this is a great way to start it.


If they cause harm to the country then they should be viewed as financial terrorists.


Is that too much to suggest?

[GreenStormCloud]

25. Jailing political opponents IS what dictatorships do.

Since some DUers are wanting Republicans jailed because of their political actions, then it follows that those DUers are wanting a dictatorship.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

28. Conspiring to destroy an economy by shutting down the country is what criminals would do.

Jailing political opponents is what Pinochet did. He was a dictator.

No DUer wants a dictatorship.


There are certain things that you don't do, and one of those is playing chicken with a fragile economy.

[GreenStormCloud]

30. The OP is trying to claim that they are guilty of sedition and should be jailed.

If is their legal right to play chicken with the economy. It isn't wise, but it IS their right. Since the OP wants them jailed for their political stance, then the OP wants a dictatorship from the left.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

47. Look at it this way, and no offense.

If the SCOTUS can destroy 100 years of legislation with Citizens United then I believe that the POTUS can suggest through his lawyers/council/DOJ that destroying an economy could amount to a seditious act or be covered under the PATRIOT act in some way.

9/11 saw the deaths of around 2,700(?) people and the ruin of buildings, planes and touched many personally, while Bush II was able to start an illegal war in Iraq, who were not to blame for 9/11, that killed far more civilians and troops.

That being said if the 17th passes and the US defaults, causing mass suffering and market crashes galore, the POTUS should be able to at least make a case that it will be as bad as 9/11 and call out the true terrorists: namely the GOP.

You want to give them an ultimatum, that's a start.

Make a precedent out of it.

If the GOP wants to fuck with the American people then fuck them back hard.

I'll consider them my personal enemy if this economy tanks and I lose my job, house or future.

[onenote]

65. Here's the problem

Last edited Mon Oct 7, 2013, 04:08 PM - Edit history (1)

How do you prove that the repubs have "forced" the government shutdown (or even a default) if they pass a bill that would keep the government open (but also do something the President believes is such bad policy that he would veto the bill rather than allow it to become law). How do you prove that the decision of the repubs to pass a bill that the Senate won't accept is any more of an act of "force" than the Senate passing a bill that the repubs won't accept?

No President, no legal counsel to the President, no Attorney General would ever even consider taking the course of action you are proposing. The only precedent you would set would be that which is obvious -- namely that you can't impose criminal penalties on legislators for voting for or against something or not voting at a ll.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. An amazingly lucid and well-thought out statement

And we don't even like each other.

[onenote]

69. I didn't know that we didn't like each other!

I think I like it better that way!! (Meaning, I'm just as happy thinking of you as someone with whom I agree more than I disagree and don't find disagreeable when we do disagree).

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

70. The only solution being put forward by the GOP is either suspend ACA or the economy gets it.

We all know where that will lead, and it will be a triumphant Tea Party and the possibility of them picking up more seats because they made the POTUS blink. That can't be allowed to happen. If the Teabillies win in 2014 then kiss ACA goodbye for good.


Not since US government shutdown of 1995–96 has there been such an attempt to damage the US economy, and once again it is the GOPigs in the lead on that.

Has there ever been a precedent in US history where the congress has held financial default over the head of America simply because they want to suspend a law that has been found constitutional?

Seeing how the GOP has tried 42 times, at a cost of 60 million, to repeal ACA is proof enough that their motives are criminal in nature.

They have unsuccessfully tried to kill ACA so if they cannot get their way then they will threaten the solvency of America by defaulting.

No President, no legal counsel to the President, no Attorney General would ever even consider taking the course of action you are proposing. The only precedent you would set would be that which is obvious -- namely that you can't impose criminal penalties on legislators for voting for or against something or not voting at a l

There is always the 14th to consider, but I am reading that the POTUS might not go that way so it goes to this query.

Would any President, their legal council or Attorney General idly sit by as the the economy is threatened with collapse by a renegade party? Would they consider doing nothing or would they show America that a desperate time would call for desperate measures?

No person in their right mind would consider what the Teabillies are doing, but no sane person would let something so disasterous happen when they might have the ability to stop it.

[Decaffeinated]

130. Great... Use the patriot act to jail your political opponents...

You took it to the next level...

WTF is going on here?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

155. WTF is going on here?

Undeclared terrorism is what is going on here: a war against Americans. War against the poor...

or GLBT...

or welfare kings / queens...

or unemployed...

or public / state / federal workers...

or home owners...

or potential home owners...

or those in need of essential services...

or those with disabilities...

or those that unfortunately need an abortion...

or those that are not in the 1%.


And all or most of that is brought to you by the crazy train GOP.

Next stop defaulting on America's ability to pay its bills.


So WTF is going on here?

It is brutally clear for anybody that gives a shit.


So take it to the next level, or do something.

[Decaffeinated]

160. So take it to an intelligent "next level"

Your proposed "next level" is fascist, ethically and morally bankrupt and guaranteed to bring about the utter and complete downfall of the Democrats.

Beyond that... great plan

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

162. I disagree with your analysis.

The only person that is talking fascism is you.

But please, go bury your head in the sand. the 17th will be here before you know it.

Better not look. It's just better to let it happen and not take a stand.

[Tigress DEM]

230. Right, didn't everyone here want the CEO Bailout Queens to go to jail for their crimes?

Looking at the deep heart of sedition as the intent to stir up such unrest that a legitimate government is overthrown for unjust reasons, there is a place for it when that is exactly what people are doing.

NOT every Republican is guilty. Probably not even every teabagger.

But asking the question and being called awful things for just "thinking differently" because it's scary to some here to think the other side would use the tactic against us is ridiculous. Us not talking about the awful behavior of that bunch isn't going to stop them one bit from making up shit to accuse us of just so they can call us seditious before we say it about them so they can say we are just trying to project our own behavior on them.

[duffyduff]

93. You really ARE clueless, aren't you?

What the Kochs and their bought people are is doing is using the trappings of democracy to FORCE fascism on the rest of us.

They need to be thrown in jail. These people are NOT harmless and are killing our country.

[GreenStormCloud]

98. Fascist jail their political opponents.

You want to jail your political opponents. Therefore...

[Tigress DEM]

113. I DO NOT have the Liberty to SHUT DOWN the Government. It's NO ONE's God given right.

I am holding politically elected officials to a standard of behavior because their actions have the POWER to DAMAGE the entire Government (and they say REPEATEDLY that this is their intent) which in turn affects the National and World Economy.

Running for office and then not voting FOR anything except your own raises and benefits for your campaign contributors and against everything that might help anyone in need is CORRUPTION in the Nth degree.

I don't want a dictatorship, only rational accountability before it's too late.

[MineralMan]

26. Not voting for something is NOT the use of force.

There's no possibility of any charges of sedition being filed.

We're angry, and rightly so, but this over-the-top shit is ridiculous and makes us look like fools.

[onenote]

33. Yep. The Constitution protects us from stupid interpretations of the sedition law by courts

but it doesn't protect us from stupid interpretations of that law by DUers. That's not a bad thing, just something I guess we'll have to put up with.

[MineralMan]

36. I guess I prefer accurate representations of things over overstatement.

Could just be me, I guess.

[onenote]

54. I'm with you all the way!

[MNBrewer]

31. That law should be repealed. It's been used as a political cudgel far too often.

[MineralMan]

39. Actually, it's very, very rarely used.

The reason is that it's very difficult to prove in court. It's simply an old-fashioned law that no longer has much application in today's world. Here are some of the rare, recent cases. Even fewer have resulted in convictions. It's a criminal charge without much reason for existence:

In 1981, Oscar López Rivera, a Puerto Rican Nationalist and Vietnam war veteran, was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and various other offenses. He was among the 16 Puerto Rican nationalists offered conditional clemency by U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1999, but he rejected the offer. His sister, Zenaida López, said he refused the offer because on parole, he would be in "prison outside prison." López Rivera is said to be "among the longest held political prisoners in the history of Puerto Rico and in the world." He has been jailed for 32 years, 4 months, and 1 day.[26]

In 1987 fourteen white supremacists were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against a seditious conspiracy between July 1983 and March 1985. Some alleged conspirators were serving time for overt acts, such as the crimes committed by The Order. Others such as Louis Beam and Richard Butler were charged for their speech seen as spurring on the overt acts by the others. In April 1988, a federal jury in Arkansas acquitted all the accused of charges of seditious conspiracy.[27]

On October 1, 1995, Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy.[28]
Laura Berg, a nurse at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005[29] after writing a letter[30][31] to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms. Berg was represented by the ACLU.[32] Charges were dropped in 2006.[33]

On March 28, 2010, nine members of the Hutaree militia were arrested and charged with crimes including seditious conspiracy.[34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition#United_States

[Tigress DEM]

119. The reason I think this discussion is important is because this is an INSIDE job.

There are extreme members in the Legislature that want to wreck the Government from within, weaken it so that it does not protect people from the Corporate Oligarchy, rather becomes a tool for the rich to dominate. It's corruption and bribery unchecked to the extreme since Citizen's United made corporations people.

They want to ARM everyone who has a hate crime on their mind. They want them to be able to legally stand their ground even if they have to run someone down for several blocks to do it. They fight any legislation to prevent this crazy stuff from happening and defend those people who want to solve their problems with a gun in their hand at any opportunity.

The soldiers in Abu Graib were sick, but their commanding officers and the warmongers above them that rigged the system so their crimes were NOT crimes are the real criminals.

IT NEEDS TO BE AGAINST THE LAW TO USE THE LAW AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. If Sedition gets us there, than so be it.

[MineralMan]

147. But the law against sedition doesn't 'get us there.'

If it did, there would have been more sedition charges brought by the Justice Department. They are not brought, because they are almost impossible to prosecute, due to the use of "force" throughout the law.

What you "know" to be true may not be found true in the courtroom.

I understand and share your frustration, but using laws that don't actually describe the behavior to prosecute people never works.

[Tigress DEM]

244. Thank you for a reasonable opinion.

A lot of what isn't being "brought" on by the Justice Department, though is in many ways political cowardice. I understand why we didn't put *ush and Chain-wreck on trial for war crimes, but it doesn't make the things they did less criminal.

There ARE ways to "force" an action upon others without direct manipulation of weapons, but you are right it is exceedingly hard to prove. Thing is they have been doing this in print, on FAUX and without any remorse.

Again I'm not just talking about the shutdown. I'm talking about spending ALL their energy on one issue when bridges fall down around us, people need jobs bills, food on the table and a government that treats everyone at least as human beings.

Maybe I should just aim at severe incompetence and find out which states have recall laws to get these bozos out of there. They are doing harm to the Nation with their creepy disregard of anything and everything except their gold prize at the end of their temper tantrum.

Ah heck, maybe just go back to tar and feathers.

[NuclearDem]

171. And the reason it's so hard to prosecute is because sedition laws have been abused time and again.

Ever since Dennis, Debs, Schenck, Abrams and the infamous Smith Act trials, SCOTUS has put up huge shields and safeguards for speech like imminent lawless action that make seditious conspiracy accusations hard to prosecute based on speech alone.

The only people convicted of SC have been tied to actual bombings or terrorism operations, and even then, that list is very small and limited to only the highest profile of cases.

What so many DUers are advocating as far as sedition law would set free speech rights back nearly a century and probably would have resulted in Occupy, anti-war, and environmental activists being sent to prison for most of their lives.

[MineralMan]

189. That's what so many are not understanding.

The misuse of Sedition Act charges will create an environment where any serious protests result in Sedition charges. And, as you correctly point out, that would include Occupy and a wide variety of progressive protest.

Too many people simply do not think of the consequences of what they recommend.

[LaydeeBug]

52. And those claiming the moral high ground shouldn't be standing in quick sand when they do it. nt

[MineralMan]

57. You mix an excellent metaphor...

[rhett o rick]

62. When you start calling fellow DU posters "ignorant" you lose all creditability. nm

[onenote]

63. I don't know. Seems like ignoring ignorance would be more damaging to one's credibility.

[rhett o rick]

64. I feel that educating the ignorant is positive. Ignoring the ignorant is sometimes

very necessary. But calling people ignorant doesnt help anything except piss people off. Especially when you define "the ignorant" as anyone that doesnt agree with you.

[onenote]

66. Personally, I've tried to avoid calling anyone ignorant or stupid.

But I see no reason to hold back from calling a stupid idea a stupid idea or an ignorant idea an ignorant idea. The posters that think that members of Congress could be rounded up and charged with sedition or some other criminal offense for voting (or not voting) a particular way appear to have given scant thought to what they are arguing, not just in terms of its implications for future situations, or how it might have applied to past situation, but simply to its logic (or lack thereof). Do they think that the courts, who have established that political questions fall outside their jurisidctions, would take it upon themselves to mandate that the Speaker of the House call a vote on a particular piece of legislation (particularly when there are established mechanisms, such as a discharge petitions) for allowing a vote to be called over the Speaker's objection. Obviously not. Do they think that, after the repubs finally capitulate and the shutdown ends that the members who voted, in a losing cause, against a particular budget bill (but who had voted for another budget bill) would be liable for criminal penalties? Its nonsense and while DUers have every right (within the boundaries of DU's rules) to spout nonsense, they aren't immune from being called out for spouting nonsense.

[rhett o rick]

67. I agree the idea promoted by the OP isnt a good idea. I dont mind if the idea

is called a stupid idea, however, I draw the line at calling other posters here, ignorant. It isnt inductive to having a decent site where we can feel free to voice our opinions w/o being called ignorant.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

71. Seeing how there appears to be enough DEM/GOP votes for a clean CR, but that the GOP leadership

and some teabillies object to it it will be held up until they can run out the clock: default.

Seeing how the GOP leadership is the only thing presently standing in the way of a clean CR or default of the USA...over their fucked up ideals they are the ones who hold ultimate responsibility for any subsequent market crash.

Would you rather have a crash, that could have been avoided by a vote on a clean CR, or would you rather have a President that is willing to explore or push any legal options under the PATRIOT act?

I'm not a fawning over the idea either, but what are the alternatives; let everything collapse around us but we still have our moral high ground?

[Llewlladdwr]

74. Without the moral high ground, what makes you better than your opponents?

If you believe that the ends justify the means, then why criticize your opponent for believing the same?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

78. We will have no moral high ground if the economy tanks and it could have been prevented.

If the PATRIOT act is the means then use it against the GOP fuckers.

Every election the GOP gets worse. They're not coming back from that. Eventually they will really fuck over this country if left to the task.

Eventually they are going to have to be made to be reasonable, or they will destroy everything.


That can't be said for the Democrats, but if the Democrats let the GOP do something risky and very bad then they will also be to blame.

[dairydog91]

89. The PATRIOT Act is not the means.

It would be a bizarre legal theory, based on a spectacularly silly interpretation of Constitutional law which apparently sees the Executive as having the power to criminally charge legislators for failing to legislate how he wishes them to. At best, it should be laughed out of court as a failure to state a legal claim.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

156. Good luck to you if the economy collapses. Really.

We'll all need good luck at that point.

[onenote]

87. What are you proposing?

Last edited Tue Oct 8, 2013, 12:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Having a court order the Speaker to call a vote? And to order member of Congress all to vote a certain way for a certain bill? Which bill? The one the Senate passed? Or will the courts simply say that the CR becomes law without the House voting? Do you understand how banana republic that sounds?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

159. Something. Anything.

Anything is better than than letting the economy crash again.

I'm sure we both agree on that, right?


So the choices now are to wait until the 17th or later for the economy to tank or give in to tabling the ACA for a year.

The markets are already down for the week and it is only the 8th. What do you believe will play out in the next 9 days: more pain?

Will the USA go back to the days/months after 9/11 where people were laid off wholesale by companies looking for an excuse?

Will banks fail like they did in 08?

...and more?


There's a lot of risky shit going on with this move by Boner and Co.


All I am proposing is that the screws are put to them any way possible. Make them feel the pain for once.

Call them terrorists.

Do something, because doing nothing is really not such a great option.

[Ranchemp.]

161. And what? Send the U.S. Marshal's in to arrest the repubs whom you deem to be committing

sedition or treason? We wouldn't obey such an order from the USAG as it would be an illegal order. We have no authority to arrest any Congressperson for their vote on a funding bill, and, it would be the start of one hell of a Constitutional crises.
Do you really want that?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

163. I love all the new posters here all of a sudden with the concernz for doing absolutely nothing.

[Ranchemp.]

164. I'm not saying do nothing,

my solution is to vote these jackwagons out and vote in progressives that won't pull this shit in the future.
So what if I'm a new poster, you were at one time also.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

166. Oaky, sure...

You do understand that the 17th happens this month?

You do understand that any chance to "vote them out" happens next year?

[Ranchemp.]

167. Well, Duh. Of course I understand,

what I don't understand are those that would use the power of the govt to silence dissent and advocate the use of the Patriot Act to arrest those political opponents that we disagree with.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

172. "opponents that we disagree with."

That is a rather disingenuous interpretation of what the GOP is doing.

Willful and reckless endangerment of a fragile US economy and, through extension, a world economy.

This isn't silencing anybody, but it is a threat of bringing some to justice who would jeopardize the stability of American/world financial status and interests.

[Ranchemp.]

173. The hell it wouldn't be silencing those you disagree with.

What do you think arresting and charging the repubs with sedition or treason would be?
This is all a moot point anyway, no one in the position of authority is going to even entertain this ridiculous notion of sedition or treason.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

178. I'm glad that you are on record for doing nothing unti 2014.

[Ranchemp.]

179. That's right, I'm on record doing it within the constraints of the Constitution,

not some ridiculous notion of sedition or treason.

Name me one governing authority that's even considering this?

[onenote]

168. I'm not a new poster

In fact, I've been here 8 years longer than you. But "something/anything" is a cop-out answer. How, within the bounds of the Constitution (and leaving aside the fact arresting every republican member of Congress would be the greatest boon to the republican party imaginable), to you restart the government if you arrest every republican? The repubs have rightly been attacked for not having an endgame to their strategy. I would think you would have come up with an end game yourself: so again, how does arresting the repubs (who would love to portray themselves as the victims of a ridiculous, unprecedented and unconstitutional overreach by the administration) get the government shutdown to end?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

174. I've been here 8 years longer than you.

Are you so sure of that?

(and leaving aside the fact arresting every republican member of Congress would be the greatest boon to the republican party imaginable)

I never wrote that so why you would bring that up is beyond me.

The repubs have rightly been attacked for not having an endgame to their strategy.

Verbally attacking a person threatening rape will not stop the act if other measures aren't also considered.

I would think you would have come up with an end game yourself...

My end game? No. It will be the endgame of the POTUS to act if threats to destabilize the economy are followed through with.

how does arresting the repubs (who would love to portray themselves as the victims of a ridiculous, unprecedented and unconstitutional overreach by the administration) get the government shutdown to end?

Firstly, I did not say arrest all the repubs, but perhaps the GOP leadership, which now stands in the way of a vote on a clean CR, could be charged with reckless endangerment of the American/World financial markets.



But perhaps we can just throw harsh language at the GOP until next year, or until the markets are wrecked.

That presently is their reality, and what they want to do.

That is their end game, and that is completely unacceptable.



Or perhaps we can suggest that the POTUS just sit on his hands.

[onenote]

175. Still waiting for you to describe exactly what should be done to force

legislation funding the government to be enacted. Apparently you don't have an answer or you have an answer but realize how absurd it would be that you're too embarassed to offer it.

Funding the government requires Congress to pass an appropriations bill. The president can't just declare that the government is now funded by whatever amount for whatever period of time he wants. No power to do that is conferred anywhere in the Constitution. Want to fund the government? Have to pass funding legislation and have the President sign it or pass it and override a presidential veto.
But under the Constitution, the House can't act if there isn't a quorum, and even if a quorum exists, there is no way to force members to vote for (as opposed to against) a particular bill -- there isn't even a way to force them to vote at all.

So how do you get from here (no funding bill) to there (funding bill)? Please show what can be done to produce that result.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

181. My suggestion was to pin the GOP as financial terrorists, and go from there

under the PATRIOT act.


You suggestion is to not do that, and pretty much do nothing at all.

Good for you.

[onenote]

183. How does that result in funding the government?

How does that get a bill passed consistent with the express terms of the Constitution?

You keep ducking the question. And I expect you'll keep ducking it because you don't have an answer.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

194. I have an idea for you. Do nothing. Consider nothing. That is about your speed.

Let it all fall apart, and do nothing.

[Ranchemp.]

186. Never thought I would see this on DU,

a democrat who wants to use this despicable Patriot Act to go after their political opponents.
For shame.
Tell us, when Bush 2 first proposed the Patriot Act, were you for it or against it?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

196. You have been here for 92 posts.

And the PATRIOT act does suck, but since it is there it is law. A sucky law will do for now against an eve suckier GOP leadership.

[Ranchemp.]

199. And yet you want to use it in an unconstitutional way to get back at political opponents.

And what does my now 93 posts have to do with the conversation? Is this meant as some sort of slight?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

206. "And yet you want to use it in an unconstitutional way..." Sauce for the Goose.

That would have to be proven. If the PATRIOT act covers terrorists then it can be bent to cover financial ones as well.

"Never thought I would see this on DU..."

Your handle has been here for a month. I'm sure you have seen it all.


BTW: Obama signed the PATRIOT ACT extension in 2011. If you don't lie it bring it up with him.


Title I of the law expands the president's authority in cases of terrorism.

The RICO Act also covers terrorism.

Call them terrorists since that is what they will be acting like. They want to screw with this country, it's financial solvency and potentially world markets then nail them to the wall. Damn them with the same laws they voted for.

[Ranchemp.]

177. And perhaps, with your strategy, we can create a constitutional crises.

Besides being unconstitutional, what law enforcement agency is going to arrest the GOP leadership? The U.S. Marshals Service? The Secret Service? The Capitol Police?
Answer, none, because they have no authority to arrest any congressperson for their vote or lack of vote on the fed. budget.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

180. With your do nothing approach the economy gets a knife in the back.

Good for you.

See you in 2014, when you try and throw the bums out, a year after it could all go to shit.

[Ranchemp.]

182. Oh I have an approach, one that's within the Constitution

unlike your approach.
But I see you failed to answer my question, what law enforcement agency would you get to arrest the GOP leadership? The U.S. Marshals Service? Nope. The U.S. Secret Service? Nope. The Capitol Police? Nope.
You know why? Because they don't have the authority to arrest any congressperson carrying out their constitutional mandate as defined by the Constitution, however we may disagree with them.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

190. "Oh I have an approach, one that's within the Constitution..."

Yeah, vote in a years time. Good for you.

[Ranchemp.]

195. And your approach would throw the govt into a Constitutional crises.

One that you would lose and make martyrs of those that you oppose.
Yeah, that's the way to go.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

198. So you admit it. You would do nothing.

[Ranchemp.]

202. I'm already on record as doing something within the constraints of the Constitution,

unlike you.
Our Republic will survive this as it has survived many other crises, but what you suggest, I'm not so sure it would survive your brand of "justice".

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

208. Good luck voting next year. Maybe the GOP will shut down government again right before the election.

How would that work into your "doing something within the constraints of the Constitution?"


Besides, I am not advocating armed conflict, but I am advocating that in the GOP wants to act exactly like extortionists then they should be prepared for a frog march if they hurt this Democracy through a default.

This country is being blackmailed right now, and I see you and others working fervently to make sure the blackmailers retain that right to fuck us all.


Good luck with your vote.

[onenote]

184. So your approach is to toss out the Constitution?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

191. Is the PATRIOT act a law?

One can always find a precedent to use against a financial terrorist that is already applied to the terrorists who conspire against America.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

185. And of course once you have the leaders arrested on -- something --

the rest of the GOP and moderate Dems will just fall right in line with you rather than immediately voting to defund the DOJ.

Then what? More arrests?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

192. We should go with you plan B.

Do nothing until 2014.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

193. Yes, you should. Arresting politicians acting lawfully within their constitutional purview

is sedition.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

197. I will love to see your posts if it all falls apart.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

201. Go subverting the constitution by criminalizing political dissent and it will fall apart

You won't win anything except a civil war because no reasonable person would idly accept what you propose.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

207. The PATRIOT Act is the law of the land.

BTW: Obama signed the PATRIOT ACT extension in 2011. If you don't lie it bring it up with him.

Title I of the PATRIOT Act expands the president's authority in cases of terrorism.

The RICO Act also covers terrorism.

Call them terrorists since that is what they will be acting like. They want to screw with this country, it's financial solvency and potentially world markets then nail them to the wall. Damn them with the same laws they voted for.

You won't win anything except a civil war because no reasonable person would idly accept what you propose.

That's where we are headed anyway, Einstein. Do you really think that the GOP is going to just go away or that Joe GOP American is going to wake up and stop voting against his interests?

The GOPigs get crazier every year, and when I see that some want to do absolutely nothing, except vote in one years time, it leaves me baffled if they really understand that high moral principles alone won't save the country.

Go stand in a crowd and protest. I did during Bush II. Several times. It didn't even make the news some times, and when it did it was brief.

The GOP wants a gunfight so we had better be prepared to bring heavy artillery next time.

[dairydog91]

209. It's a fairly basic point of American law that the Constitution trumps ANY federal law.

The constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. No law may override it, save for a Constitutional amendment. So even if the PATRIOT Act could be read to apply to a congressman's refusal to vote, the Constitution will render such application unconstitutional and unenforceable. Additionally, if ANY president EVER tries to arrest a member of Congress for voting or not voting in a way that displeases the President, the rational choice is for the House and the Senate to impeach the President. For them to allow such behavior menaces their Constitutionally-protected independence from the executive. I would support impeachment of any President who effectively tries to declare himself Imperator of the United States.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

210. You're a constitutionalist? Really?

So if the law is not in the constitution then it is invalid?

The constitution also puts forth in Article. I., Section. 1. the following.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Guess what. The PATRIOT ACT is law: passed by both houses under George Bush II, and signed again by President Obama in 2011.


It's law.

This is not about as you describe "a congressman's refusal to vote" or "what displeases the President", but it is about the GOP leadership not allowing a clean vote on CR: which would and can lead to an economic disaster.

Financial terrorism.

If a trader on Wall Street willfully gamed the system and brought about a financial collapse people would be calling for his/her head, but apparently the GOP leadership can just decide they can do the same or worse simply because they don't like a law that is already in effect.

Financial terrorism.

I would support impeachment of any President who effectively tries to declare himself Imperator of the United States.

I would support indicting any politician who willfully derailed an economy for their own sense of pride.

I would support any politician that went after the former with any legal means possible to bring that interloper to justice: even if it means setting a precedent.

[dairydog91]

211. Sigh.

You may pass any law which the Constitution authorizes you to pass. You may not pass any law which the Constitution forbids you to pass. Any law which the Constitution forbids you to pass is unenforceable in courts of the United States. An application of an otherwise valid law which is in conflict with the constitution is invalid, even if the rest of the law is enforceable.

You've passed from arguing a highly questionable interpretation of the PATRIOT Act to showing a complete lack of understanding of one of the most basic points of American constitutional law. This is not a debatable point. If applying the PATRIOT Act would be unconstitutional in this context, then the law cannot be applied.

I would support indicting any politician who willfully derailed an economy for their own sense of pride.

I would support any politician that went after the former with any legal means possible to bring that interloper to justice: even if it means setting a precedent.

There are no legal means, short of amending the Constitution.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

213. That's where you are wrong.

Every Senator and Congressperson has taken the oath of office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

If the GOP leadership drives this economy into the ditch willfully then they are not only in violation of their oath of office, but guilty of high crimes.

They can always blame the POTUS for not yielding to their extortion, but that charge will be a hollow one.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

214. In the race for crazy we are quickly pulling ahead.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

215. Good luck to you after the 17th.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

216. If all you want to do is punch first then punch first

And no, I won't wish you luck.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

242. I didn't ask for your luck so thanks.

[duffyduff]

90. It's harsh, but it's true. We have to call it what it really is. n/t

[Decaffeinated]

94. This is stupid and has more than a hint of fascism...

Disagree with me politically? You should go to prison...

7 years ago, the opposition party would be cheered for fighting to the bitter end. Now we want to charge em... The winds of change and all that...

[duffyduff]

96. The Kochs aren't simply disagreeing.

I really don't think people here truly grasp that our country is broken. Our Congress is almost worthless and can't get anything done, and you have a bunch of extremists who are willing to take down the country if they don't get their way.

We are near the breaking point in this country, and it is largely due to the fact we have a very few people who have way too much money and have way too much influence.

[Decaffeinated]

121. So what do you want to do about it?

If that answer is prosecute, by law, those who disagree with you politically then you've already lost.

They believe they are right just as much as you do. The idea that evil guy/group X is sitting there with their fingers tips together, laughing maniacally at the destruction of the country is not very likely.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

245. And the Kochs! Well, you're consistent.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

95. Unfortunately....

Not passing a continuing resolution or raising the debt limit is neither against the law nor is it sedition. There are many words that could be used to describe the extreme right wing of the Republican Party (I personally prefer "The Suicide Caucus&quot but their actions are in no way seditious.

[duffyduff]

97. Yes, they are. This is not harmless disagreement.

I don't think you grasp the severity of the problem.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

100. I grasp it perfectly well...

But this is not an attempt to overthrow the government. For starters, the House of Representatives IS the government, and their failure to pass legislation (no matter how necessary or important it may be) is not an act of sedition. It's an act of cowardice and stupidity, to be sure, but it's not an act of sedition.

I know it's fun sling metaphors around, but at some point, we have to be grounded in reality. And the reality is the the House of Representatives is acting within their constitutionally-defined purview to not pass a continuing resolution or to raise the debt ceiling.

It is what it is, but not what it isn't.

[Ranchemp.]

101. It's funny, if the shoe were on the other foot

and repubs were saying this shit, people like the poster you answered would be screaming bloody murder that it's unconstitutional to have political opponents arrested.
Oy Vey.

[grasswire]

114. this is not a "failure to pass legislation"

This is an act of extortion that subverts our democratic processes.

This is using the budget as a bludgeon to defund a law that was passed by Congress, signed by the POTUS, affirmed by SCOTUS.

The proper remedy to scuttle a law is to bring IT anew, for a vote. Not use the faith and credit of the United States as a bludgeon.

Not a "failure to pass legislation"

[Abq_Sarah]

129. Has it occured to you

That with the deep divides in this country, those on the right likely feel the same way?

The ACA isn't a constitutional right so there are many people who would dearly love to scrap it. Like any other law passed by congress, it can be defunded or changed at any time. Since all appropriations must originate in the House, they are free to write appropriations bills to their hearts content that fund and defund any government program.

Frankly, I don't like the ACA. With the ability for states to opt out of the medicare expansion (states do still have rights) it's pretty much screwed the very people it was designed to help. Plus, I don't like the idea of making insurance companies richer than they already are, particularly since you have to sue them if they decide not to honor their contracts and god knows, they've got the highest paid lawyers in the country. If the R's in the house had more than a dozen working brain cells, they'd let the program continue until it destroys itself. Then we could push for single payer.

[grasswire]

165. a hella lotta people despised the laws abolishing slavery, too

So were the confederate attacks on the union justified because southerners wanted to keep their slaves?

Just looking for a logical parallel here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

188. Not voting on a law you prefer is not the same as keeping slaves.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

140. This is precisely failure to pass legislation

You might not agree with the House's tactics, but they are operating within their constitutional authority. It might be wrong-headed, bone-headed, and many other things, but it's not illegal and it's not sedition.

If it's sedition, then we're looking at the prospect of arresting sitting members of Congress with whom we have a political disagreement. And bear in mind, the right-wing might look at Obama unwillingness to "compromise" as being equally seditious.

A political impasse is not sedition, and the solution to a political impasse is not arresting the people you disagree with.

[ladjf]

109. What the tea bag group is doing might not be sedition or illegal. But, if they never back down,

this stalemate will continue indefinitely until the government and the economy collapse.
At that point, there will be no governmental authority to enforce laws. That is a state of
anarchy.

So, if what they are doing is legal, we will have to establish Martial law, rewrite a Constitution, start over and hope that we haven't been swallowed up by some other Country before we get reorganized.

Anyone have any good suggestions how to avoid such a stupid outcome?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

144. It takes 2 sides to have a stalemate.

[ladjf]

151. If the Dems capitulate every time the pubs pull this stunt, then there will ultimately have the

same result of Gov. and economic collapse.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

152. That may be true but each side is still maintaining the stalemate for their own policial agenda

[DonCoquixote]

126. When treason doth prosper

done dare call it treason" A. Pope

[onenote]

146. Actually the author of that quote is John Harrington.

Sir John is remembered for two things: that quote and for inventing the flush toilet (it was Harrington, not Sir Thomas Crapper as is widely believed).

And that quote is probably best known as the title of a anti-communist screed written by John Stormer in 1964.

[DonCoquixote]

127. and to all the people who say "force has not been used"

Ask gabby giffords
ask Tray Martin
ask Dr. Tiller

[onenote]

142. What does that have to do with the government shutdown?

And while each of those shootings was a horrific crime, what do any of them have to with sedition?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

145. The admins need to start doing something to rein this nonsene in.

People are working themselves into a lather and something will get out of control.

[Niceguy1]

131. political differences

By the othrr branches isn't sedition. The very idea of labeling the oppositin of such is no different than what is seen in authoritarian regimes

[Recursion]

143. Since Congress is who decides what the law is in the first place, this is kind of silly (nt)

[hughee99]

157. Yes, lets expand the term sedition to include all sorts of political speech.

With the government already monitoring our every communication, I'm sure this won't have any unintended consequences.

[Tigress DEM]

231. It isn't just "NOT" voting that is seditious. Heck that's passive resistance DEMS are all over that.

It's the advance planning from Obama's re-election that makes this a premeditated disruption to the government for no other purpose than to gain political clout.

It's like the difference between justifying a war that we get involved in to prevent genocide and one someone starts against a country based on lies and misinformation.

They can both look alike because war is war and it has certain characteristics. But there are differences and legally finding a way to keep this trick from coming out of the proverbial rethug/teapug magical hat at every next opportunity is a valid discussion.

I agree that the mega ton of crap they put out on the airwaves while it sickens me, is factually incorrect and totally against my own views is still free speech and I think they are more than welcome to it.

BUT using Democratic process to actually harm Americans by planfully and purposefully disrupting the government is against the oath each Congress Person took to defend the Constitution.

DEMS get in power and people get healthcare, jobs, better living conditions and commonwealth education opportunities.

REthugBags get in power and the rich get richer and lives are endangered everywhere you turn and the government is no place to go for redress.

[pinboy3niner]

237. Still not a crime

Both sides meet and plan political strategies in advance.

And these particular RW culprits have passed CR bills--albeit with riders.

There is no treason here, no sedition, no crime. This is a political matter, not criminal.

[gopiscrap]

176. yup

[onenote]

187. Sedition is against the law. Of course, no one has committed sedition.

It wasn't sedition when Bill Clinton vetoed a continuing resolution in the 90s, "forcing" a government shutdown.
It wasn't sedition when the Senate refused to pass the same CR language that the House sent to them.
It wasn't sedition (or threatened sedition) when President Obama publicly committed to veto a CR that touched the ACA, even if that CR was passed by a majority in the House and Senate.

And its not sedition for the repubs not to pass the amended CR that the Senate sent back to them.

And if you still think it is, please explain how its only sedition when the repubs refuse to pass the Senate's language, but not sedition when the Senate refuses to pass the House language or when the President says he'll veto a CR even if it has been passed by both the House and Senate?

[Rex]

200. A lot of blowhards pretend they believe in it.

Repukes are always pining for the slave days. They disgust me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

227. I wish they staid out of this

Because it is not sedition, or treason, in this case.

It is the wrongheaded (in this case) control of the purse, one of the two powers specifically given to the House in the Constitution. The other is declaration of war. They surrendered the latter in the course of the Imperial presidency, and the former, for purely ideological reasons they seem to have ascertained it.

But I guess people are really going there.

For the record, it is a Constitutional crisis. IMHO the worst since Fort Sumpter. So you draw your conclusions from that.

[onenote]

233. Exactly what makes this the worst Constitutional crisis since Ft. Sumpter?

What makes this a greater Constitutional crisis than the shutdowns (there were two in quick succession) that occurred in 1995-1996 when we actually had a situation in which the President not only vetoed a CR that had been passed by a majority in both the House and Senate, but also vetoed a debt ceiling bill that had been passed by a majority in the House and Senate. Yet, the country survived. Comparing this to Ft. Sumpter is rather hyperbolic at this point.