If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to
overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the
United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force
the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the
execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize,
take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the
authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Can refusing to allow a vote to provide the necessary appropriations for the duly authorized laws of the United States (and one law in specific) be considered "force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States?"
Talk amongst yourselves -- I haven't had time to do the research yet, but thought it was an interesting question.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Aren't congreemen and senators immune from prosecution from prosecution under the speech and debate clause of the Constitution? I'm not certain, but I would think it would apply here as allowing or not allowing a vote is within the powers of congress and hence a legislative act.
I don't know Sue, doesn't congress and the senate both have sergeants at arms to forcibly discipline those who might attempt to thwart the nefarious/seditious plans? Would that constitute force?
Big RR wrote:I don't know Sue, doesn't congress and the senate both have sergeants at arms to forcibly discipline those who might attempt to thwart the nefarious/seditious plans?
True Sue, but then, as I recall, in the Adam Clayton Powell case (which the USSC decided in his favor), he named the sergeant at arms for withholding his salary and refusing to admit him to the House chamber even though he was elected by the people in his district, so sometimes the sergeant at arms does act with force.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Whether or not it falls within the narrow limits of sedition or not, it is clearly treason. How else can you describe threatening to harm the country just to advance a narrow ideological doctrine?
Religious war by another name.
According to the Republican party not enough people are dying from untreated "preexisting conditions" and we need to kill more.
Treason? Please. What's next, order their executions?
Like it or not, congress is doing something that it is entitled to do--it's incredibly stupid and harmful, but Congress holds the keys to the money under the Constitution. I agree it should be stopped, but inventing a (or straining the definition of an existing) crime to somehow force congress to act a certain way is not the way to stop it. Until the representatives and senators hear a loud and clear message from the people that this will not be tolerated, nothing will be done. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be forthcoming because a lot of people don't really care.
In a democratic republic, we the people get the government we deserve, and we richly deserve this one.
It is an assault on the welfare of the United States, just like a terrorist attack. Although it is more like the WTC attack in 1993 that that on 9-11. It is carried out by similarly incompetent and stupid people but just as deluded as any jihadist. The effects are more distributed and take effect more slowly but the degree of harm is great. The initial job losses are 800,000 although Chuck Hegel has called back the civilian defense dept. workers. $300,000,000 /day lost to the economy during a weak recovery when JOB LOSSES are the biggest issue, not deficits.
Defaulting on the national debt is their next goal / terroristic threat. We'll see if they hate the people of the United States as much as they say they do.
The ACA was written and passed by congress after many discussions and compromises. It was signed by the president. It has passed review by the Supreme Court of the United States. That is the process of democratic government in the United States. Using terrorist threats to subvert that process is without justification or precident.
The Republican party long ago has ceased to function except as a terrorist group as divorced from empirical reality and as slavish in following a superstitious ideology as the Taliban.
Global Climate Change = wrong and lying about the science
Immigration = wrong and lying about the facts
Health Care = wrong and lying about how many people die of treatable diseases in the US.
The Economy = caused the worst economic disaster in 80 years and not learned anything from their failure.
They should never be allowed to run anything ever again. GOP = American Taliban
rubato wrote:Whether or not it falls within the narrow limits of sedition or not, it is clearly treason.
We had a lot of discussion of the definition of "treason" awhile back in the threads about Edward Snowden and Bradley ManGirling. From what I can recall of those discussions, I'm pretty sure Boner's (<--deliberately misspelled because he deserves it) conduct comes closer to "sedition" than "treason". But Big RR is probably right about it being ( *MERELY* ) "incredibly stupid and harmful".
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God@The Tweet of God
The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.
trea·son (trzn)
n.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
treason [ˈtriːzən]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) violation or betrayal of the allegiance that a person owes his sovereign or his country, esp by attempting to overthrow the government; high treason
2. any treachery or betrayal
Acting, or threatening to act, in a way which is known to be harmful to the US to advance a narrow and extremist ideology is treason. In this case it is more direct since they are trying to deprive millions of healthcare which will certainly kill some of them.
Obama is right to refuse to negotiate with terrorists.
Threatening to shut down the government in order to pervert the democratic process, and even more so actually doing it, is treason. "If we can't kill your wife and kids by taking away their healthcare we will drive you further into recession and poverty instead."
"Two issues led to the shutdown. One was defunding or delaying Obamacare. The other, as Sen. Ted Cruz put it, was 'making D.C. listen.' What's been remarkable--and largely unnoticed--is that Republicans have abandoned both those demands. But that hasn't led them to reopen the government -- much less swear off a debt-ceiling crisis. So the hostage remains even as the GOP rethinks and rewrites its ransom note": Ezra Klein and Evan Soltas: Wonkbook: The GOP rewrites its ransom note
) "incredibly stupid and harmful".