General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sedition is against the law [View all]onenote
(46,164 posts)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.