Sedition

[Cryptoad]

[gopiscrap]

1. yup, I've been saying that also

[Ranchemp.]

2. Question?

What illegal act are the congressional GOP committing?

[Avalux]

3. Refusing to pay the bills. n/t

[Ranchemp.]

4. Can you show me the law concerning that?

[Avalux]

6. Are you playing gotcha? I'm sure you can figure it out. n/t

[Ranchemp.]

7. No, but if you can't cite the law,

then I've got to wonder if you even know what your talking about.
This has been gone over and over again and again during the last shutdown and it was thoroughly debunked.

[Avalux]

10. There is no specific law.

Under the Constitution, Congress is required to fund the government; they must pass laws that pay the bills. No it's not black and white and the buffoons in office know where there's wiggle room. Deliberately allowing the government to default is unconstitutional. Maybe at some point the SC will rule it as such.

[Ranchemp.]

13. So they're not committing sedition?

And they're not breaking any specific laws?

[Avalux]

16. I never said they were committing sedition.

Words matter don't they? And I haven't had enough coffee yet. No, they haven't done anything illegal - there was no law broken where they could be arrested. Unconstitutional, or being out of compliance with the constitution, is not criminal unless a law is passed supporting that ruling.

I think a lot of people, including myself, desperately want what they've done to be criminal and see them carted off in handcuffs. We do live in a democracy (?), so all we can do is hope the process spits them out eventually.

[Ranchemp.]

20. Be careful what you wish for,

the GOP wouldn't hesitate to use those kind of laws against Dems, it would be a clusterfuck for both sides of the aisle.

The way to stop this nonsense is to nominate strong Dem candidates and vote these teabaggin assholes out of office and then get on with the business of running the govt.

[Cryptoad]

23. Seems that there is no longer

any fair election of candidates. The Corps and the 1 % have "rigged the game". If so you are suggesting that we wait until their Sedition turns to Treason and a Religious Authoritarianism.

[randome]

26. The corporations are not currently happy with the GOP.

And the game is not rigged when the GOP nominates clowns like Romney and Palin for higher office.

That's the work of buffoons, not sinister forces.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Ranchemp.]

28. As I said,

get back to me when someone in actual authority brings forth charges of sedition, until then, I suggest that we work within the system to change things.

[Avalux]

34. Very true.

I think we agree, in spite of what we want emotionally, the best course of action is to work within the system. Organize and VOTE.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. "Congress is required to fund the government"

Not entirely accurate but even if we accept this statement on its own terms Congress gets to decide what is "the government." If they wish to add to or subtract from what the government does they are free to do so.

If the argument is to be made that they must pay, in a timely manner, those things they agree to maintain then the debate can become one of if funding be passed as a single omnibus bill or broken into several smaller stop-gap bills. The GOP was willing to allow the latter, the Democratic party refused that approach on principle.

Keep in mind there were 17 previous shutdowns, some of which occurred during sessions where the Democratic party held both chambers. Let's not go setting any silly precedents that can be used against us in the future.

[dairydog91]

40. It's almost entirely inaccurate.

Congress MAY have an obligation to pay back official government debt (Or maybe the President just has emergency authority to print money in order to meet official obligations if he can't get funding from anywhere else). That's it. That in no way constitutes any binding obligation to pay anything that they've promised to the American people, unless the people hold official debt. Social security obligations (Not the Trust Fund), Medicare, Medicaid, and any other program are not official debt, and Congress has no Constitutional obligation to provide funds for them. Saying that they can be tried "for not paying the bills" apparently comes from the belief that Congress may be subjected to Trial by Talking Point.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. I concur but you would be amazed at how persistent this idea has been.

Far too many around here have effectively gone around demanding the President instigate a civil war by having opposition party members arrested and tried while he pass a budget by decree.

[brush]

37. Okay, you want to know the law . . .

how about continuing to vote to shutdown the government because they wanted to defund the ACA law.

Is that enough for you? The ACA is a law passed by Congress and validated by the Supreme Court, yet those seditious bastards were disrupting the government in an attempt to resist the law.

Read the graphic from the OP again:

Sedition — an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority (the SCOTUS validated ACA) and tending to cause the DISRUPTION OR OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT.

It's as clear as black and white that this is what happened with the 24 billion-dollar-wasted-GOP-backed government shutdown geared at overthrowing a federal law.

Got that?

[Ranchemp.]

38. Apparently, the legal authorities disagree with you.

No one in any position of authority, up to and including the President, have even hinted that this is an act of sedition.

Got that?

[brush]

39. I see you didn't re-read the graphic with the OP.

And who is this "no one in any position of authority?

Google the word, what happened with the repugs and the shutdown over the ACA certainly falls under the definition of sedition. But you can deny it all you want.

[dairydog91]

41. If they tried that, the only people committing sedition would be the DOJ and the President.

Sedition law can't apply to Congress's actions, since Congress's decision to fund or not to fund can never be illegal (Pesky Constitution). However, if the president tried to prosecute Congressmen for voting or failing to vote for a budget, that might very well be:

1) Illegal (Considering Congress has the exclusive power to make budgets, using criminal law to "review" their choices is at least unConstitutional, if not illegal)

2) Inciting resistance to lawful authority: Well, Congress makes the laws, so it's about as much a "lawful authority" as you can get.

3) Tending to Cause the Disruption or overthrow of the Government: Well, since giving the President the power to criminally review Congress's voting decisions would essentially give the President absolute power over Congress, virtually nullifying Congress's status as an independent legislative body, this would appear to be an overthrow (or "coup" if you like) of a major branch of the U.S. government.

[Nye Bevan]

9. So should Barack Obama have been arrested in 2006 for voting not to raise the debt ceiling?

He would probably still be serving his sentence today, as opposed to being President.

[Avalux]

11. It's not the President's job to fund the government. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

12. He was a Senator at the time.

And he voted against raising the debt ceiling.

[Avalux]

17. I stand corrected. Maybe I should go back to bed! n/t

[Ranchemp.]

14. He wasn't President Obama in 2006,

he was Senator Obama, D-IL. in 2006.

[Cryptoad]

5. Its called Sedition,,,,,,,

18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000)

[Ranchemp.]

8. No, it's not.

This crap was thoroughly debunked during the last shutdown, if it was sedition, then there would have been arrests, of which there were not, except from annonymous internet boards, not from any one in any authority, not even Pres. Obama said or even hinted anything like sedition.

What the GOP is doing or attempting to do is stupid and irresponsible, but it is in no way illegal.

[Ranchemp.]

15. Tell you what,

get back to me when someone in actual authority, not some anonymous internet poster, calls for sedition charges to be filed, until then, no crime has been committed, unless you want to criminalize stupidity, which would mean the arrest of most politicians.

[Cryptoad]

18. So you are saying ,,,,

that no GOP-Teaparty members have made any statements that are a danger to our rights.???

good luck with that one!

Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919])

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sedition

[Ranchemp.]

19. Once again, who in any authority is calling for sedition charges to be brought against

these GOP'ers?
Oh, and one other thing, the congress is the lawful authority, whether or not they're acting like petulant children.

[Cryptoad]

21. Who said anything about ,,,

someone in authority calling for sedition charges......?
No need to make it up.
But there are many of us "people of no authority" who think that it is something
that should be considered...... !

[Ranchemp.]

22. How about, instead of calling for something that's never going to happen,

we work to nominate good progressive Dems and vote those teabaggin assholes out of office?
Calling for sedition charges to be brought forth is, at best, extreme and at worse, makes our side look just as nutty as their side.

[Cryptoad]

29. Are you a Seer

and know what is never going to happen,,,, I never thought I would see Members of Congress saying what some to these asshole say in public... Maybe if it is not going to happen it may be important to point out were the boundaries of Sedition lay.

[Ranchemp.]

30. You seem to confuse the 1st Amendment with sedition.

They may be saying stupid and irresponsible shit, but it's their right to say it, it's not sedition.

[Cryptoad]

31. This is more than stupid and irresponislbe shit they are talking,,,,,

An Impertinent Question

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Permit me an impertinent question (or three).

Suppose a small group of extremely wealthy people sought to systematically destroy the U.S. government by (1) finding and bankrolling new candidates pledged to shrinking and dismembering it; (2) intimidating or bribing many current senators and representatives to block all proposed legislation, prevent the appointment of presidential nominees, eliminate funds to implement and enforce laws, and threaten to default on the nation’s debt; (3) taking over state governments in order to redistrict, gerrymander, require voter IDs, purge voter rolls, and otherwise suppress the votes of the majority in federal elections; (4) running a vast PR campaign designed to convince the American public of certain big lies, such as climate change is a hoax, and (5) buying up the media so the public cannot know the truth.

Would you call this treason?

If not, what would you call it?

And what would you do about it?

bertreich.org/post/55191562750

[Ranchemp.]

33. In all that gobbeldygoop, there was only one crime,

and that was bribery, which is not treason or sedition.
Currently, the rest is legal under US law.

I would call for laws to address these issues, that's what I would do and I would work towards making sure my reps. in congress knew my views.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. The author mispelled "stupid" as "impertinent"

(1) When did shrinking government automatically become sedition? Near as I can tell national defense is an obligation of the federal government but patriots can petition for the shrinking of the national defense budget.

(2) intimidation and bribery? Sounds like so much hyperbolic nonsense. But assuming such things occurred by their legal definition there are already laws against intimidation and bribery -- which aren't sedition, they're intimidation and bribery.

(3) "taking over state governments" Is this how the author describes it when Democrats win state legislative majorities and they get to redistrict? Try doing an image search for "Democratic gerrymandered districts." We aren't exactly entitled to cast the first stone here.

(4) "running a vast PR campaign" Apparently the author doesn't like the 1st Amendment and wants criminalize speech he doesn't agree with. That strikes me as fairly seditious. The remedy for bad speech is more speech.

(5) "buying up the media" These are publically traded companies. Anybody can buy stakes and there are plenty of deep pockets on the Democrat side of the aisle. If we want a better voice we need to compete by offering products the consumer wants. It takes just as many button pushes to get to MSNBC as it does to get to Fox. People are choosing for a reason, we need to tap into those reasons. We also have Huffington Post, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, salon.com, Slate, The New Republic, etc. etc. etc. All of these are just a hyperlink away from whoever wants them.

Really, you do yourself a disfavor reading such manifestly ridiculous tripe.

[Lurks Often]

24. Yes! Let's set the legal precedent that can be used against Democrats the next time

the Republicans are in power!

[cthulu2016]

25. No, a good case for that cannot be made.

Childish!

[DrDan]

27. this is just silly - let's drop it

[Dr. Strange]

36. I'd like to hear this "good case" for the arrest and trial of members of Congress.

Sounds like the kind of "unAmerican" bullshit that Bachmann likes to throw around.

[malaise]

42. ANd you know who have been spreading rumors about being locked up in camps for years

The said folks who were planning Sedition.