An interesting fact about treason

[goldcatt]

Wanna duke out some academic debate over Sedition laws?

LOL!

I have been known to be willing to waste time on even relatively inconsequential stuff. But that's too silly (as waste of times go) for even me.

On the other hand, I'm not sure anybody can really divine what incitations to violence (with regard to advocating the overthrow of the United States government) constitute ones likely to incite IMMINENT violence versus those that may incite delayed violence. I'm also not exactly clear why the SCOTUS thinks that's a distinction that matters in terms of valid First Amendment analysis.

If you incite violence, but it isn't likely to be imminent, but is instead likely to be delayed, why should you not be subject to a sedition law?

'Splain eet to me.

Party pooper.

Sedition laws are anathema to the First Amendment for one thing, and for another are far too prone to political manipulation and abuse. Would you trust a Democratic Congress and President to write, pass and sign a sedition law defining what speech is "inciting" violence against the government? Would a Democrat trust a Republican Congress and President to do the same? Be honest here.

If you're not sure anybody can divine what speech is likely to cause delayed violence, how can a law be drafted defining exactly what that is and a prosecution have the ability to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? There will always be doubt as to what speech "could" have an effect on what nutter out there. Should it all then be criminalized if the government deems it "could" lead to violence down the road? If it could incite a reasonable person? If it could incite a nutcase living in a bunker? In the context of the First Amendment that's absurd.

Excuse me, but bullshit!

Sedition laws are far from anathema to the First Amendment.

That's a nonsensical thing to say.

There is not a rational view of the First Amendment that protects speech designed to incite the violent overthrow of the U.S unless you happen to imagine that the Constitution IS a suicide pact.

And, if one is attempting to incite the violence associated with any effort to overthrow the government, then whether it's imminent or something which might be delayed until next week or next month is a distinction with no meaningful difference.

You seem unable to wrap your head around the concept, but the damn SCOTUS is fully capable of making idiotic decisions.

Don't any of you libs grasp the real intent of the First Amendment?

sheesh.

Hardly. The problem is in writing and executing the law itself. Where does criticism end and "inciting future violence" begin, and whose crystal ball are you going to use?

Brandenburg's imminent standard is pretty clear cut. You catch the guy at the head of the mob, already drunk with pichforks in hand and headed to the castle, he ain't protected. You catch the guy talking to his buddies about maybe doing the mob thing next Tuesday night, what is that? Inciting possible future violence? A guy just joking around? A drunk who'll sleep it off? Is that worth abrogating the First for?

 

[ConHog]

Wanna duke out some academic debate over Sedition laws?

LOL!

I have been known to be willing to waste time on even relatively inconsequential stuff. But that's too silly (as waste of times go) for even me.

On the other hand, I'm not sure anybody can really divine what incitations to violence (with regard to advocating the overthrow of the United States government) constitute ones likely to incite IMMINENT violence versus those that may incite delayed violence. I'm also not exactly clear why the SCOTUS thinks that's a distinction that matters in terms of valid First Amendment analysis.

If you incite violence, but it isn't likely to be imminent, but is instead likely to be delayed, why should you not be subject to a sedition law?

'Splain eet to me.

Party pooper.

Sedition laws are anathema to the First Amendment for one thing, and for another are far too prone to political manipulation and abuse. Would you trust a Democratic Congress and President to write, pass and sign a sedition law defining what speech is "inciting" violence against the government? Would a Democrat trust a Republican Congress and President to do the same? Be honest here.

If you're not sure anybody can divine what speech is likely to cause delayed violence, how can a law be drafted defining exactly what that is and a prosecution have the ability to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? There will always be doubt as to what speech "could" have an effect on what nutter out there. Should it all then be criminalized if the government deems it "could" lead to violence down the road? If it could incite a reasonable person? If it could incite a nutcase living in a bunker? In the context of the First Amendment that's absurd.

Excuse me, but bullshit!

Sedition laws are far from anathema to the First Amendment.

That's a nonsensical thing to say.

There is not a rational view of the First Amendment that protects speech designed to incite the violent overthrow of the U.S unless you happen to imagine that the Constitution IS a suicide pact.

And, if one is attempting to incite the violence associated with any effort to overthrow the government, then whether it's imminent or something which might be delayed until next week or next month is a distinction with no meaningful difference.

You seem unable to wrap your head around the concept, but the damn SCOTUS is fully capable of making idiotic decisions.

Don't any of you libs grasp the real intent of the First Amendment?

sheesh.

I agree with this. The founding fathers set our government up precisely so that a violent overthrow would never be necessary. No one branch of government will ever have the power to just do anything they want, and we have elections to make sure no party stays in power long enough to do any significant damage. This is proven by the fact that as much as some bitch that Bush fucked things up beyond repair and as many now bitch that Obama is fucking things up beyond repair our government will survive.

Now there is the issue of the idiotic American people not taking their part of the deal responsibly, but that is a different question, and not one that a violent revolution would solve.

No , our founding fathers meant for us to overthrow the government with ballots not bullets.

 

[MaggieMae]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving
them Aid and Comfort.

Rather than worry about which group of crooks, the States or the Feds, that one might perchance commit treasonous acts towards; worry about how in the immediate future the terms "levying War" and "Aid and Comfort" will be more loosely defined, and include any criticsm of any government actions.

Nah. With luck pretty soon we'll toss those First Amendment loathing liberals, socialists and Marxists the hell OUT of office and we won't need to "worry about" such obviously unConstitutional problems.

It's that pesky First Amendment that broadly allows lobbyists to run the country.

 

[MaggieMae]

Party pooper.

Sedition laws are anathema to the First Amendment for one thing, and for another are far too prone to political manipulation and abuse. Would you trust a Democratic Congress and President to write, pass and sign a sedition law defining what speech is "inciting" violence against the government? Would a Democrat trust a Republican Congress and President to do the same? Be honest here.

If you're not sure anybody can divine what speech is likely to cause delayed violence, how can a law be drafted defining exactly what that is and a prosecution have the ability to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? There will always be doubt as to what speech "could" have an effect on what nutter out there. Should it all then be criminalized if the government deems it "could" lead to violence down the road? If it could incite a reasonable person? If it could incite a nutcase living in a bunker? In the context of the First Amendment that's absurd.

Excuse me, but bullshit!

Sedition laws are far from anathema to the First Amendment.

That's a nonsensical thing to say.

There is not a rational view of the First Amendment that protects speech designed to incite the violent overthrow of the U.S unless you happen to imagine that the Constitution IS a suicide pact.

And, if one is attempting to incite the violence associated with any effort to overthrow the government, then whether it's imminent or something which might be delayed until next week or next month is a distinction with no meaningful difference.

You seem unable to wrap your head around the concept, but the damn SCOTUS is fully capable of making idiotic decisions.

Don't any of you libs grasp the real intent of the First Amendment?

sheesh.

Hardly. The problem is in writing and executing the law itself. Where does criticism end and "inciting future violence" begin, and whose crystal ball are you going to use?

Brandenburg's imminent standard is pretty clear cut. You catch the guy at the head of the mob, already drunk with pichforks in hand and headed to the castle, he ain't protected. You catch the guy talking to his buddies about maybe doing the mob thing next Tuesday night, what is that? Inciting possible future violence? A guy just joking around? A drunk who'll sleep it off? Is that worth abrogating the First for?

In that case, the SC justices ruled that a Klan leader's cry at a rally for members to violently oppose civil rights laws was protected speech. However, a specific call to bomb churches at a designated place and time would not be. So I guess to be used as precedent, there would need to be a proven imminent threat against specific target.

 

[FA_Q2]

I agree with this. The founding fathers set our government up precisely so that a violent overthrow would never be necessary.

!!!
Really? They did their best job but the 2nd amendment is really there so we could do that very thing if it was ever needed.

 

[ihopehefails]

Ah, I see what you're saying now. I figured 'they' meant lawyers arguing over a contract in court, each trying to interpret the contract their own way. I guess the irony here is that the language used in defining precise language was misinterpreted because of the third-person plural.

Liabailty laid out the whole argument pretty well. It's a change in language; people didn't refer to the United States in the singular back then.

What difference does that make? When someone signs a contract the meaning stays the same. It does not change over time because to do so would alter the terms that both parties agreed to. The constitution refers to States in the plural which refers to the collection of states and not the whole nation. The treason clause even says that treason is an act against 'them' which refers to the states themselves and not the nation.

it's not that the meaning 'changes'... it's that people can disagree about the meaning.

you need to stop repeating your incorrect assertions after you've been corrected by people who actually understand the concepts.

no one tells you how to clean bathrooms ...

you shouldn't try to discuss what law is until you actually learn something about it

First you say that people disagree on the constitution and then tell me I can't have an opinion about the constitution thus nullifying my ability to disagree with anyone eles' opinion.

Why don't you actually try backing up something of what you say with your own thoughts instead of repeating the 'experts' so much. You do have your own thoughts right....

Treason is defined as war against the states and not against the central government itself. This actually makes more sense because what if a state got into a little fight with Mexican border patrol (such as what happen this weak) and another state like California aided the mexican border patrol against Texas. That would be treason because one state is aiding the enemy of another state. It keeps one state from betraying the other and maintains the unity of the nation in times of war and conflict.

 

[ihopehefails]

I was under the impression the issue posed was the definition of treason, which is and has always been action and not speech. Criticism of the government is not even close to treason and frankly I've never heard anybody of any consequence left or right argue that it should be considered as such. Morons on blogs and message boards maybe, but those morons are on the extreme fringes of both sides. Hence my point, insanity is not a partisan trait.

Your impression was a misimpression. What was SAID was:

Quote: Originally Posted by Bezukhov

Rather than worry about which group of crooks, the States or the Feds, that one might perchance commit treasonous acts towards; worry about how in the immediate future the terms "levying War" and "Aid and Comfort" will be more loosely defined, and include any criticsm of any government actions.

It was that to which my post was responsive.

Which terms are taken directly from the Constitutional definition of "Treason".

I understand what you're saying, but Sedition and Treason are two different crimes, and two different issues. Treason is the Act of levying war or the Act of providing aid and comfort to the nation's enemies. And treason is a crime in the US, obviously. Criticism of government or even using speech to attempt to stir up action against government is sedition, which hasn't been a crime in the US for more than 200 years.

That is not definition because the constitution is not a dictionary. The constitution states that treason shall be this which means that is how anyone can be charged with treason under the constittution.

 

[Liability]

Party pooper.

Sedition laws are anathema to the First Amendment for one thing, and for another are far too prone to political manipulation and abuse. Would you trust a Democratic Congress and President to write, pass and sign a sedition law defining what speech is "inciting" violence against the government? Would a Democrat trust a Republican Congress and President to do the same? Be honest here.

If you're not sure anybody can divine what speech is likely to cause delayed violence, how can a law be drafted defining exactly what that is and a prosecution have the ability to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? There will always be doubt as to what speech "could" have an effect on what nutter out there. Should it all then be criminalized if the government deems it "could" lead to violence down the road? If it could incite a reasonable person? If it could incite a nutcase living in a bunker? In the context of the First Amendment that's absurd.

Excuse me, but bullshit!

Sedition laws are far from anathema to the First Amendment.

That's a nonsensical thing to say.

There is not a rational view of the First Amendment that protects speech designed to incite the violent overthrow of the U.S unless you happen to imagine that the Constitution IS a suicide pact.

And, if one is attempting to incite the violence associated with any effort to overthrow the government, then whether it's imminent or something which might be delayed until next week or next month is a distinction with no meaningful difference.

You seem unable to wrap your head around the concept, but the damn SCOTUS is fully capable of making idiotic decisions.

Don't any of you libs grasp the real intent of the First Amendment?

sheesh.

Hardly. The problem is in writing and executing the law itself. Where does criticism end and "inciting future violence" begin, and whose crystal ball are you going to use?

Brandenburg's imminent standard is pretty clear cut. You catch the guy at the head of the mob, already drunk with pichforks in hand and headed to the castle, he ain't protected. You catch the guy talking to his buddies about maybe doing the mob thing next Tuesday night, what is that? Inciting possible future violence? A guy just joking around? A drunk who'll sleep it off? Is that worth abrogating the First for?

Nonsense.

Some issues ARe actually difficult to define. This isn't one of them.

Words that incite violence would be pretty fucking obvious.

"To arms! Let's go GET that fucking Governor and hang him high!"

"On Friday, folks, we are marching to the Capital and we will storm the Rotunda. Bring your guns and grenades!"

Clearly inciting violence. The former seems pretty fucking imminent. The latter seems to be a little bit delayed. and?

What fucking possible real world difference does THAT make?

If somebody DOES say something that sounds ambiguous, that's why prosecutors have discretion, that's why we HAVE Courts of law and that's why we HAVE juries.

What we don't need is judicial legislating that prohibits the creation of laws that validly criminalize such exhortations to the violent overthrow of our respective governments (i.e., State and Federal).

 

[Liability]

Party pooper.

Sedition laws are anathema to the First Amendment for one thing, and for another are far too prone to political manipulation and abuse. Would you trust a Democratic Congress and President to write, pass and sign a sedition law defining what speech is "inciting" violence against the government? Would a Democrat trust a Republican Congress and President to do the same? Be honest here.

If you're not sure anybody can divine what speech is likely to cause delayed violence, how can a law be drafted defining exactly what that is and a prosecution have the ability to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? There will always be doubt as to what speech "could" have an effect on what nutter out there. Should it all then be criminalized if the government deems it "could" lead to violence down the road? If it could incite a reasonable person? If it could incite a nutcase living in a bunker? In the context of the First Amendment that's absurd.

Excuse me, but bullshit!

Sedition laws are far from anathema to the First Amendment.

That's a nonsensical thing to say.

There is not a rational view of the First Amendment that protects speech designed to incite the violent overthrow of the U.S unless you happen to imagine that the Constitution IS a suicide pact.

And, if one is attempting to incite the violence associated with any effort to overthrow the government, then whether it's imminent or something which might be delayed until next week or next month is a distinction with no meaningful difference.

You seem unable to wrap your head around the concept, but the damn SCOTUS is fully capable of making idiotic decisions.

Don't any of you libs grasp the real intent of the First Amendment?

sheesh.

Hardly. The problem is in writing and executing the law itself. Where does criticism end and "inciting future violence" begin, and whose crystal ball are you going to use?

Brandenburg's imminent standard is pretty clear cut. You catch the guy at the head of the mob, already drunk with pichforks in hand and headed to the castle, he ain't protected. You catch the guy talking to his buddies about maybe doing the mob thing next Tuesday night, what is that? Inciting possible future violence? A guy just joking around? A drunk who'll sleep it off? Is that worth abrogating the First for?

Nonsense.

Some issues ARe actually difficult to define. This isn't one of them.

Words that incite violence would be pretty fucking obvious.

"To arms! Let's go GET that fucking Governor and hang him high!"

"On Friday, folks, we are marching to the Capital and we will storm the Rotunda. Bring your guns and grenades!"

Clearly inciting violence. The former seems pretty fucking imminent. The latter seems to be a little bit delayed. And?

What fucking possible real world difference does THAT make?

If somebody DOES say something that sounds ambiguous, that's why prosecutors have discretion, that's why we HAVE Courts of law and that's why we HAVE juries.

What we don't need is judicial legislating that prohibits the creation of laws that validly criminalize such exhortations to the violent overthrow of our respective governments (i.e., State and Federal).

 

[ihopehefails]

Just ask Sarah Palin. She can tell us all about treason. She only needs to ask her secessionist husband, Todd (we are not American) Palin.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...-america-arrest-for-sedition.html#post2402018

Successsion* is not treason or not treason that can be punishable under the constitution since it is defined as "war" and not the peaceful voluntary departure from the union.

 

[ihopehefails]

How many lawyers do you know write a legal document in such a way to substitute functional language for fancy language?

No side step. Just pointing out that there is a reason why the chose the language that they did. When they say states and use terms like 'them' or 'their' then they are referring to the states themselves. My point was was that treason isn't defined as war against the federal government which I believe is done on purpose. They wanted people of the several states to be able to overthrow their federal government when it got really bad so they didn't define treason as war against the authority of the United States but war against the states themselves.

This also prevents states from betraying other states because at the time each state had more independence than they do now. They dealt with foreign nations and because of this a state could betray another state or the union with an alliance or war against another state. Could you imagine if Florida decided to allow Al-quada camps so it can conduct warfare against the rest of the union? That would be treason.

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree with this. The founding fathers set our government up precisely so that a violent overthrow would never be necessary.

!!!
Really? They did their best job but the 2nd amendment is really there so we could do that very thing if it was ever needed.

Yeah, right. If it were that simple, the USSC would not have taken up at least 35 cases over second amendment rights over the years.

 

[George Costanza]

How many lawyers do you know write a legal document in such a way to substitute functional language for fancy language?

No side step. Just pointing out that there is a reason why the chose the language that they did. When they say states and use terms like 'them' or 'their' then they are referring to the states themselves. My point was was that treason isn't defined as war against the federal government which I believe is done on purpose. They wanted people of the several states to be able to overthrow their federal government when it got really bad so they didn't define treason as war against the authority of the United States but war against the states themselves.

This also prevents states from betraying other states because at the time each state had more independence than they do now. They dealt with foreign nations and because of this a state could betray another state or the union with an alliance or war against another state. Could you imagine if Florida decided to allow Al-quada camps so it can conduct warfare against the rest of the union? That would be treason.

Not accusing you of sidestepping. I merely put that little guy in there as a slipperly lawyer. Little joke there, nothing more.

I see the point you are trying to make. It has probably been addressed somewhere along the line and I suspect not in the way you are interpreting it. Ever hear of treason against a state? I never have. We hear of treason against the United States all the time - hell, all anyone has to do is go to a conservative Internet message board these days and it seems that's all anyone is claiming. (Idiots, of course.)

But treason against "a state"? I think not.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I agree with this. The founding fathers set our government up precisely so that a violent overthrow would never be necessary.

!!!
Really? They did their best job but the 2nd amendment is really there so we could do that very thing if it was ever needed.

Yeah, right. If it were that simple, the USSC would not have taken up at least 35 cases over second amendment rights over the years.

Don't be so sanguine about what the USSC would do if an amendment were simple or not. The USSC had quite a line of case going on what the 10th Amendment meant until it decided that it was only a "truism" and didn't actually mean anything.

Were they right when they decided that? Doubtful. It seems hazardous, in my opinion, to construe away meaning from any part of Constitution given how hard it is to pass an amendment. It's really a failure on the part of the USSC if they decide to strip an Amendment of any effect and their doing so is bound to be revisited.

As for the Second Amendment, if you look at the Bill of Rights as a whole (all 12 of them of which 10 were initially passed and one was recently passed making 11 of the 12 that were passed into effect), they are about the positive rights of individuals under the new governmental structure. Each covers a specific area, but they must (and the Supreme Court has time after time) be viewed together as part and parcel of one another. The 2nd Amendment primary function in to ensure the people's ultimate right to effective rebellion; to have the wherewithal to take on a tyrannical national government. Yes, there are certainly other valid reasons to allow the citizenry to maintain arms, but no other reason is as important to the state (the nation-state) as its primary reason.

 

[FA_Q2]

Rather than worry about which group of crooks, the States or the Feds, that one might perchance commit treasonous acts towards; worry about how in the immediate future the terms "levying War" and "Aid and Comfort" will be more loosely defined, and include any criticsm of any government actions.

Nah. With luck pretty soon we'll toss those First Amendment loathing liberals, socialists and Marxists the hell OUT of office and we won't need to "worry about" such obviously unConstitutional problems.

It's that pesky First Amendment that broadly allows lobbyists to run the country.

Do you truly find it 'pesky!' Do you realize that, without our first amendment protections, this entire governmental system would completely collapse? The right to free speech is the cornerstone of all our right and the one from which all others are taken and protected.

 

[George Costanza]

The 2nd Amendment primary function is to ensure the people's ultimate right to effective rebellion; to have the wherewithal to take on a tyrannical national government.

Where do you come up with this? I have never heard this cited as one (or any) of the reasons for the enactment of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Liability]

The 2nd Amendment primary function is to ensure the people's ultimate right to effective rebellion; to have the wherewithal to take on a tyrannical national government.

Where do you come up with this? I have never heard this cited as one (or any) of the reasons for the enactment of the 2nd Amendment.

Really?

You need to get better versed on the Constitution as designed by the framers and what they sought.

Try this for starters: The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

Then contemplate this:

The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both Tucker and Rawle were friends of, and corresponded with, Thomas Jefferson. Their views are those of contemporaries of Jefferson, Madison and others, and are entitled to special weight. A few years later, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" considered the right to keep and bear arms as "the palladium of the liberties of the republic", which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow it should it come to pass.

-- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms , words of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman
Subcommittee on the Constitution
January 20, 1982.

 

[FA_Q2]

The 2nd Amendment primary function is to ensure the people's ultimate right to effective rebellion; to have the wherewithal to take on a tyrannical national government.

Where do you come up with this? I have never heard this cited as one (or any) of the reasons for the enactment of the 2nd Amendment.

I am absolutely floored that you have never heard this before. The FIRST things a dictator will do is stop free speech and control weapons. Those protections are there to prevent this government from running away. Why else would the right to own a gun be included in the constitution? This is particularly reinforces since it follows the clause for state militias.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The 2nd Amendment primary function is to ensure the people's ultimate right to effective rebellion; to have the wherewithal to take on a tyrannical national government.

Where do you come up with this? I have never heard this cited as one (or any) of the reasons for the enactment of the 2nd Amendment.

Have you spent much time discussing or learning about the role of the "anti-federalists" at the time of the adoption of the Constitution? If you look at the writings of Richard Henry Lee, George Mason and Thomas Jefferson, you'll see where my information comes from.

Here's a sample:

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

 

[ihopehefails]

No side step. Just pointing out that there is a reason why the chose the language that they did. When they say states and use terms like 'them' or 'their' then they are referring to the states themselves. My point was was that treason isn't defined as war against the federal government which I believe is done on purpose. They wanted people of the several states to be able to overthrow their federal government when it got really bad so they didn't define treason as war against the authority of the United States but war against the states themselves.

This also prevents states from betraying other states because at the time each state had more independence than they do now. They dealt with foreign nations and because of this a state could betray another state or the union with an alliance or war against another state. Could you imagine if Florida decided to allow Al-quada camps so it can conduct warfare against the rest of the union? That would be treason.

Not accusing you of sidestepping. I merely put that little guy in there as a slipperly lawyer. Little joke there, nothing more.

I see the point you are trying to make. It has probably been addressed somewhere along the line and I suspect not in the way you are interpreting it. Ever hear of treason against a state? I never have. We hear of treason against the United States all the time - hell, all anyone has to do is go to a conservative Internet message board these days and it seems that's all anyone is claiming. (Idiots, of course.)

But treason against "a state"? I think not.

Yes states can handle treason however they want (they don't because that would be not prudent in this day and age) but I believe that in this reference they were referring to the collection of states themselves without the federal government.