General Discussion

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

38. In the US the definition comes from the US Code

Tue Oct 8, 2013, 11:08 PM

Oct 2013

Not Wikipedia. Moreover, since they are members of Congress they are shielded, as they are doing this in the performance of their duties. Now if, I don't know, Louis Goehmert takes up arms against the Government and even just follows others in the actual armed rebellion, then they have crossed that boundary.

No, they are not committing sedition by actually enforcing a power given to them in the Constitution. Granted, I doubt any of the founders could conceived of this form of tyranny. They could very well conceive the one stemming from a King, but that was in their experience. So this power in the hand of the People's House was seen as a control on the President, like declaring war. These two, I will remind you, are the two critical powers of congress. They pretty much surrendered the power to declare war, and I think they are wrong headed in what they are currently doing with the power of the purse. It might even explode a MIRV with multiple warheads in the world economy, but sedition it is not.

Language has a definite meaning.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hey kids, I know that it is fun to demonize the other side [View all] nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 OP

It's only natural to look for a reasonable solution. Turbineguy Oct 2013 #1

Well assuming this crisis does not deepen to the point I fear it could nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #2

Where DID you learn to write? Brilliant prose. Pretzel_Warrior Oct 2013 #19

fyi, English is not her first language steve2470 Oct 2013 #40

I did not know this. I knew she was an accomplished woman, Pretzel_Warrior Oct 2013 #55

Oh yes because you are a professional writer HangOnKids Oct 2013 #52

That's just the point. I am not a professional writer and bow to the pros Pretzel_Warrior Oct 2013 #54

Keep it coming PW HangOnKids Oct 2013 #58

Sedition Katashi_itto Oct 2013 #37

In the US the definition comes from the US Code nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #38

No they are not sheilded, if you want the code, here's the US Constitution: Katashi_itto Oct 2013 #39

You have misread the domestic terrorism provision onenote Oct 2013 #42

Fine. Then that means if they succeed, Democracy is effectively nullified by a Katashi_itto Oct 2013 #53

Read the definition of treason nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #43

If you can claim that some idiot with a pistol strapped to his waist legally is a terrorist... NutmegYankee Oct 2013 #3

Problem is I have not said that nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #5

Oh really? NutmegYankee Oct 2013 #6

Tell me, are these people members of congress? nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #13

I was taking an approach like your OP. NutmegYankee Oct 2013 #15

And I tell you once again, that open carry is archaic nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #28

I don't disagree that it is archaic and stupid in modern day. NutmegYankee Oct 2013 #32

You could just both be wrong. JVS Oct 2013 #11

Likely true NutmegYankee Oct 2013 #14

Everything old is new again. NYC_SKP Oct 2013 #4

But that never ended up in a courtroom, now did it? nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #8

The point is that the word gets tossed around from time to time. NYC_SKP Oct 2013 #16

Hey I agree on the assholery comment nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #20

And because it is ever so much more productive Skidmore Oct 2013 #26

The spending was already approved Finnmccool Oct 2013 #7

In US law is picking up arms, it is a close cousin nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #9

Hear, hear! Laelth Oct 2013 #10

They need to be accountable. Buddha_of_Wisdom Oct 2013 #12

They are, in fact, within the law doing what they're doing now. Laelth Oct 2013 #17

How about RICO charges? It actually fits... Buddha_of_Wisdom Oct 2013 #18

It does not, what they are doing is exactly within the parameters of the Constitution nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #21

Except it's not. Buddha_of_Wisdom Oct 2013 #30

If they were doing it as private citizens nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #35

the are Niceguy1 Oct 2013 #24

Who is going to lock them in. The repubs are in the majority in the House. onenote Oct 2013 #45

Here is one power POTUS could use nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #57

may not be sedition, but it's becoming TRADITION napkinz Oct 2013 #22

That is exactly where the major cracks in the Constitution lie nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #25

In theory I agree with you but that begs the question is the United States at war with terrorists Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #23

Control of the purse is in the Constitution nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #27

I agree with your interpretation of the Constitution in the strictest sense, they're not committing Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #29

Did you feel that way when the Democrats tried and eventually succeeded onenote Oct 2013 #47

The primary difference being was in "passing legislation" and not undermining Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #50

Those of who marched and participated in the moratorium onenote Oct 2013 #60

Another excellent point, onenote pinboy3niner Oct 2013 #61

"Dangerous to democracy" is the ability to destroy the economy as a response to laws passed they TheKentuckian Oct 2013 #68

"These fuckers should be captured or killed"? pinboy3niner Oct 2013 #70

Good enough for the brown terrorist, good enough for the white ones. TheKentuckian Oct 2013 #79

You weren't elected and you didn't swear an oath to uphold and defend Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #69

Giving aid and comfort to WHAT enemy? MNBrewer Oct 2013 #71

We're supposedly at war with terrorists. Now if one agrees with that point, Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #72

that is a nonsensical bunch of crap. MNBrewer Oct 2013 #73

There is a major difference between the executive or legislative branches making a Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #74

Not in terms of giving "aid and comfort" to al Qaeda there's not MNBrewer Oct 2013 #75

In terms of undermining the U.S. Government they are. Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #77

Good OP, this is just venting IMHO. grantcart Oct 2013 #31

Kids? maddezmom Oct 2013 #33

Got that right! randome Oct 2013 #34

Aw - I think it's just a generic salutation... cyberswede Oct 2013 #36

"Adhering to enemies" of the US is unnecessary bhikkhu Oct 2013 #41

Well, if you prefer what they have caused is a constitutional crisis. nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #46

I suppose if they are doing it for purely ideological reasons, that's one thing bhikkhu Oct 2013 #51

I have major issues with those particular laws nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #56

They've passed resolutions to fund the government, onenote Oct 2013 #48

Don't talk down to us with this stupid 'kid' thing. n/f/t. Whisp Oct 2013 #44

condescension is the mask of insecurity. Jim Warren Oct 2013 #59

Par for the course from that one. Brickbat Oct 2013 #64

Took the words right off my keyboard! Surya Gayatri Oct 2013 #67

But IMHO they're all such stupid poopy-heads that it really ought to be against the law! struggle4progress Oct 2013 #49

I agree. sendero Oct 2013 #62

Threads that critisize Democrats and DU are even more unhelpful that someone's obvious FSogol Oct 2013 #63

It's much easier for them to demonize others rather than look at themselves Corruption Inc Oct 2013 #65

The large picture is not pretty nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #66

Treason and Sedition are not the same thing.. VanillaRhapsody Oct 2013 #76

the flight of the popinjay. nt dionysus Oct 2013 #78