BowelMoveOn.Org

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Don't worry, the liberals lack the spine to attempt to follow through with this. They are completely right but they lack the balls to do anything so no worries.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Using that logic the entire Democrat delegation could be locked up for treason.

Not in the least. They didn't threaten the nation unless they got their way the Republicans did. Still this is a non-starter. Democrats lack spines. You can be assured that if Senator Obama had pulled something similar though that you'd be leading the charge and the REpublicans might just do it too.

 

[Squibbs]

Ooooh.

Another c&p to drool and whine over.

 

[Disgustipated]

Holy crap, vettebirther has been posting all day since 4am. No wonder his wives leave him.

 

[Squibbs]

Holy crap, vettebirther has been posting all day since 4am. No wonder his wives leave him.

Reason #473

I'm sure it had more to do with the 'I'm always right' delusion he's lost in.

 

[doctor_insanus]

Not in the least. They didn't threaten the nation unless they got their way the Republicans did. Still this is a non-starter. Democrats lack spines. You can be assured that if Senator Obama had pulled something similar though that you'd be leading the charge and the REpublicans might just do it too.

Ha. Methinks you give them way too much credit.

Chickenhawks, Bible-thumpers and corporate cocksuckers following Teds Cruz and Nugent in a pants-shitting contest, more likely.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Does no one understand the common legal meaning of "by force" anymore?

 

[phrodeau]

I'm sure that there are members of the Tea Party Caucus who would love to get arrested. They probably consider themselves martyrs already.

 

[Liar]

It's just talk ,and it's silly. Is it any sillier than all the impeachment nonsens? Not by much.

 

[Wrong Element]

It's just talk ,and it's silly. Is it any sillier than all the impeachment nonsens? Not by much.

Let me see...

Time to impeach the lawless fucker.

Nope.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I dare them to try it:

Oh lighten up Francis.

They're just upset.

Just like you were a few months back when you were yammering about the need to overthrow the government by force.

Nobody takes them seriously, just like nobody took you seriously back then.

 

[cjh]

Sort of reminds me of the idiocy of people who argue Obama should be impeached for playing politics they don't like.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Sort of reminds me of the idiocy of people who argue Obama should be impeached for playing politics they don't like.

When the vettebigot goes on one of his Impeach Teh Negar! rants, I think back to that Andy Griffith episode where Gomer follows Barney around yelling "Citizen's Arrest! Citizen's Arrest!"

 

[KingOrfeo]

Does no one understand the common legal meaning of "by force" anymore?

Weellll . . . There are American federal sedition laws, still on the books, and having passed the test of First Amendment challenges in the SCOTUS, that criminalize merely advocating the overthrow of the government, or interference-by-word-alone with its operations. See the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Smith Act, the latter of which was used to try and convict Communists just for being Communists.

However, these laws cannot be applied to anything members of Congress do in their official capacities. That would be unconstitutional.

 

[Adre]

Fecal matter title thread. Well played, Vette.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Fecal matter title thread. Well played, Vette.

He managed to get a scat reference in to bash libruls.

Quite an accomplishment, given his typical extraordinary lack of creative thought.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Weellll . . . There are American federal sedition laws, still on the books, and having passed the test of First Amendment challenges in the SCOTUS, that criminalize merely advocating the overthrow of the government, or interference-by-word-alone with its operations. See the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Smith Act, the latter of which was used to try and convict Communists just for being Communists.

However, these laws cannot be applied to anything members of Congress do in their official capacities. That would be unconstitutional.

You need to get on the Supreme Court's distribution list. The current legal standard of unlawful seditious speech was set by the Court in the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Brandenburg ruling established that unlawful speech had to incite, or be likely to incite, "imminent lawless action."

That ruling negated almost all state anti-sedition laws and obviously undercut the Court's prior decisions in Dennis v. United States and Schenck v. United States.

The mere advocacy of overthrowing the United States government devoid of the threat of "imminent lawless action" has been perfectly legal for the past 44 years.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You need to get on the Supreme Court's distribution list. The current legal standard of unlawful seditious speech was set by the Court in the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Brandenburg ruling established that unlawful speech had to incite, or be likely to incite, "imminent lawless action."

That ruling negated almost all state anti-sedition laws and obviously undercut the Court's prior decisions in Dennis v. United States and Schenck v. United States.

The mere advocacy of overthrowing the United States government devoid of the threat of "imminent lawless action" has been perfectly legal for the past 44 years.

Curious, what technically qualifies as the threat of imminent lawless action? I assume that Sharon Angle's suggestion of 2nd Amendment solutions and whoever it was the other day suggesting civil disobedience until/unless Obama comes out with his hands up clearly doesn't qualify?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Curious, what technically qualifies as the threat of imminent lawless action? I assume that Sharon Angle's suggestion of 2nd Amendment solutions and whoever it was the other day suggesting civil disobedience until/unless Obama comes out with his hands up clearly doesn't qualify?

I have not dived into the bowels of Brandenburg lately, but I would be very surprised if the Court gave a detailed description of what it means by "imminent lawless action." The Court is rather known for setting the bar and then using a future case to illustrate whether or not that bar was exceeded.

Common sense tells me that if her speech to flush the President out of the White House could be shown to have resulted in a group of armed vigilantes surrounding the White House looking for all the world as if they were about to open fire, then they and she would be rounded up, detained and prosecuted. The proof of her unlawful sedition being the very overt acts which it produced.

On the other hand, if her exhortations merely inspired a group of followers to, say, peacefully block the entrance to a public building, as technically unlawful as that surely is, it remains highly unlikely that a local district attorney or the U. S. Department of Justice would charge her with sedition.

These days legal authorities, for the most part, are smarter than to try and throw the book at somebody practicing passive civil disobedience.

Addendum: From Wiki, and as I suspected.

"The Brandenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test the outer limits of Brandenburg, so the test remains largely unqualified."

 

[1sickbastard]

Curious, what technically qualifies as the threat of imminent lawless action? I assume that Sharon Angle's suggestion of 2nd Amendment solutions and whoever it was the other day suggesting civil disobedience until/unless Obama comes out with his hands up clearly doesn't qualify?

That's the whole point of Civil Disobedience, isn't it?
To purposely break a law, perceived as unjust, and do so in such numbers that practical enforcement of said law becomes unfeasible. Essentially, it's an attempted veto by the public.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That's the whole point of Civil Disobedience, isn't it?
To purposely break a law, perceived as unjust, and do so in such numbers that practical enforcement of said law becomes unfeasible. Essentially, it's an attempted veto by the public.

But anything involving "2nd Amendment solutions" is insurrection, not civil disobedience.

 

[1sickbastard]

But anything involving "2nd Amendment solutions" is insurrection, not civil disobedience.

Possibly.

If said solution involves violence, especially on the part of those defying a law, a case could be made for insurrection.

If no violence is involved, and those breaking the law surrender to arrest peacefully and without resistance, I'm not sure it would pass the "Imminent Threat" test.

It's an interesting legal question though.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

But anything involving "2nd Amendment solutions" is insurrection, not civil disobedience.

But the thing to remember is that, under the Brandenburg standard, the mere advocacy of insurrection is apparently protected speech and that even right wing militias out "training" in the woods in preparation for an eventual revolution have not breached the "imminent lawless action" standard.

Should such an insurrection actually be attempted, however, the standard would surely be violated and, yes, it would most obviously be distinguished from civil disobedience.