Posted on 04/28/2010 1:03:36 PM PDT by K-oneTexas
For the past year, the Obama administration, unable to win arguments based on facts and merit, has been moving to criminalize the political opposition in an effort to artificially control the debate. First, the DHS published reports classifying conservative viewpoints as terroristic. Then hate crimes legislation was introduced to squash religious speech regarding sexual deviancy. And finally, Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein claimed the power to ban "falsehoods," an infraction Sunstein in his infinite nonpartisan wisdom would define and determine. And now, the ultimate political A-bomb has been introduced into the public discourse: the charge of sedition.
That was the charge against Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin from Time Magazine's Joe Klein. "Sedition" is a historically loaded word, since it is primarily associated with the jailing of political opponents and has traditionally been hard to identify. Those in power usually wield the "sedition" slur as a bludgeon against anyone who stands in the way of their agenda, whatever that may be.
But due to the fact that so-called sedition is so frequently associated with issues of free speech, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled numerous times that anti-sedition laws are unconstitutional. Translation: Sedition is constitutional.
Anti-government sentiment is an American tradition. Some would even say that questioning the government and the sincerity of government policies is part of healthy democratic life. In fact, we should be skeptical of those who wish to stifle this sentiment. The Declaration of Independence even defends the idea of a "right to alter or abolish" the government. This is the famous right to revolution. Although lawyers have squabbled over the precise meaning of the words "alter or abolish," and certainly no one wants to see mob-led anarchy, this much is clear: In America, government does not rule subjects. "We the people" rule the government, and government serves at our will. We do not owe the president or members of Congress unquestioning loyalty. That kind of loyalty is the hallmark of another system defeated in two world wars, one hot and one cold.
In America, whenever government becomes destructive to its primary purpose, it must be replaced. And what is the primary purpose of government? The Declaration of Independence enlightens:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men ..." How far have we strayed from that maxim?
There were three major Sedition Acts historically: one passed during the Adams administration in the later part of the 18th century, one passed during WWI, and one passed during the FDR administration. Although the 1940 Smith Act is still on the books, all of these statutes have been nullified by the Supreme Court.
In Yates v. United States, the SCOTUS ruled that citizens could even go as far as to advocate the forceful overthrow of the United States government (as long as these discussions were passive in nature.) This case dealt with Communist subversives, a paradigm much more detrimental to the system by which Americans are governed than the much-hyped tea party movement, which simply seeks a return to constitutionally limited government.
Additional cases include New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Watts v. United States. Although the Sedition Acts expired some years before these cases were decided, the wording is useful. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the SCOTUS declared, "Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history." In Watts v. United States, Justice William O. Douglas concurred: "The Alien and Sedition Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters; and I had thought we had done with them forever ... Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution." And finally, Watkins v. United States held that those accused under the Smith Act could rely upon the First Amendment as defense, holding that "[a] congressional investigation is subject to the command that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or press or assembly." This last case was especially relevant during the so-called Red Scare, when hundreds of suspected Communists were the left's cherished victims of America's own show trials.
This history reveals that, apart from cases where incitement can be shown, using the word "sedition" against political enemies is out of place in a free country. Any American may oppose government policies without advocating the violent overthrow of the entire political system. Those who capriciously bandy about terms like "sedition" are knowingly committing an act of slander, since the charge of sedition requires the intent to upset law and order, a motivation nowhere present in the political movement collectively referred to as the "tea party."
There are the occasional nuts on both ends of the political spectrum, but to tar half of America with such a firebrand word is to engage in willful deception and intimidation -- especially in cases like that of alleged offender Glenn Beck, who is on record promoting nonviolence.
Bottom line: If debates cannot be won based on the strength of arguments, and it becomes necessary to engage in threats and ad hominem attacks, then the debate has already been lost by whoever resorts to these lowbrow devices. Maybe Cass Sunstein should spend some time examining the "falsehoods" emanating from members of his own party, like Nancy Pelosi's decision to stop just short of calling conservative Americans Nazis. It is remarkable that we live in a time when the Speaker of the House can impugn her own constituents with the crudest label known to man and escape serious consequences.
The Obama administration and its journalistic allies must not be allowed to succeed in their goal of silencing free speech for short-term political gain. American freedom is too precious to allow it to be molested by those who would stoop to such dangerous name-calling.
Woo hoo!!
Rebellion is brewing!!
Just vote them OUT!!
WHY DOESNT OUR GOVERNMENT WANT OUR LAWS ENFORCED OR OUR BORDERS AND CITIZENS PROTECTED....??
IMHO, our government (Congress) doesn’t know what laws are written. Once they pass them, they forget them.
They should pass a law creating a Sunset Commission and the Commission would be mandated to ‘kill’ out-moded, out-dated, truly superseded laws.
They don’t have a ‘clue’ what is on the books today!
How many foreign nationals would it take? How many foreigners parading down our streets demanding the right to live on our land, before our government would act? For almost 70 years now the American tax payer has funded the most powerful military on the planet. WE PAID FOR IT!!!!
How many? It’s a number that I want to know. How many would it take before that military was used to protect us? Is it 300,000? Is it 500,000? A million? How about 2 million “peaceful” undocumented Chinese workers? Would that be enough?
HOW MANY?
Bump & bookmark
Join the Obamacare Class Action Lawsuit
"The purpose of this lawsuit is to reverse Supreme Court precedent related to the Commerce clause and thereby overturn Obamacare. The Supreme Court has historically erred in its interpretation of the Constitutional role of the Federal Government. Recent Supreme Court rulings hint that they may be willing to take another look at Commerce clause precedent. Obamacare is so over reaching and so onerous, that it must either be repealed in Congress or struck down in the courts. We must fight this on both fronts. This is our historic opportunity to reverse America’s trend toward Socialism by overturning this unconstitutional precedent.
If you are a US citizen and agree with the goal of this lawsuit, please join us. If you have concerns about joining, please review the FAQs for more information. Every person we add strengthens the voice of "We the People".
Progressives may call it sedition if they wish, but they have embarked upon a course whose end is anathema to anyone who truly loves Liberty. A “long train of abuses and usurpations” will grow ever longer until We, the People, choose to exercise the rights that come not from Washington, D.C. but from our maker, and act to cast off the designs of those who oppress us - falsely and maliciously - in the name of a perverse notion of “equality”, but with power as their only true object.
Very simple: Because their election and cozy position in life is more important than you and your family's lives. Alexander the Great didn't care how many lives he snuffed out so long as he was at the top of the heap and these wanton tyrants operate on the same equation.
almost that many illegals marched on dc...how about i think the us government will wind up using troops on us(tax payers first)...there is some reason why they will not protect the borders and enforce laws against illegals?
Our government is failing the people on every issue..that can’t be an accident.
and its both parties.
even rubio is wishy washy on illegals..comming accross the border as an illegal is not immigration.
True to form, these treacherous, treasonous bottom feeders are berating patriots long and loud for the very thing they themselves are doing. Sedition is actually pretty mild stuff compared to what the odinga, peloser, dingy, media cabal, along with sundry RINO's is attempting to pull off.
Can you say coup d'état ?
You better believe Sedition is Constitutional.
I’m down for a Revolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.