Skip to comments.
Sedition Act
Constituion
| 2-3-03
| Rocketjsqurl
Posted on 02/02/2003 6:26:07 AM PST by RocketJsqurl
I would like to ask my congressman about the Sedition Act. I believe this law applies to the trewason lobby uin this country including the three congressmen who visited Iraq.
In my opinion , the shuttle crashed because of the damage from it's "left wing". Seems like God is sending America a message.
This is the 1918 version. We should pump up the fine to todays's standards. Maybe about $250,000 plus jail
Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: seditionact
To: RocketJsqurl
Umm... and who gets to decide what "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" is? Bill and Hil? Janet? Wes Clark?
Let's give this one a pass.
2
posted on
02/02/2003 6:48:25 AM PST
by
Grut
To: Grut
Grut,
You can't implement laws for the fear of future dictatorships?
To: RocketJsqurl
Attempting to prove wilingness and intent in situations such as this would be almost impossible. It would have to be a very overt act and expressed as such.
4
posted on
02/02/2003 7:04:41 AM PST
by
templar
To: RocketJsqurl
Cool the left is very scared of this happening!
5
posted on
02/02/2003 7:05:19 AM PST
by
TLBSHOW
(God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
To: RocketJsqurl
Any other amendments you want to repeal other than the First or is that enough?
To: Non-Sequitur
Aiding our enemy is a first amendment privledge?
Please explain
To: RocketJsqurl
Aiding our enemy is a first amendment privledge? No, freedom of speech is. If you can prove that someone is aiding our enemy then that's treason not sedition.
To: RocketJsqurl
Since the powers in DC allowed Jane Fonda to get away with an actionable act of treason (a detailed account has been given by constitutional law professor Henry Mark Holzer), the act of betraying the US really doesn't exist as a crime any longer provided the perpetrator is rich or famous enough. Even "Taliban John" was allowed to retain his US citizenship and thus escape a trial by military tribunal despite his being actively involved in acts of war against the US military.
With a former President who sold sensitive military technology to a hostile foreign power - in consort with a number of Republicans, evidently - laughing and counting the mountains of cash received for his reprehensible actions, there is scant hope of anything being done. You never know, they might come up with a way to use the Sedition Act to deal with the greatest of all threats to our freedom - pro-life demonstrators.
To: RocketJsqurl
You can't implement laws for the fear of future dictatorships? Got it in one. Or maybe you don't.
10
posted on
02/02/2003 8:53:22 AM PST
by
Grut
To: Grut
Who gets to decide? The answer-a jury. tIf I remember the particular law in question passed Supreme Court muster.
11
posted on
02/02/2003 8:55:58 AM PST
by
AEMILIUS PAULUS
(Further, the statement assumed)
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: MRAR15Guy56
May be an idiot but at least not a treasonous idiot.
13
posted on
02/02/2003 11:13:00 AM PST
by
AEMILIUS PAULUS
(Further, the statement assumed)
To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
May be an idiot but at least not a treasonous idiot. Back off. That comment is way out of line.
14
posted on
02/02/2003 12:09:07 PM PST
by
Grut
Comment #15 Removed by Moderator
To: MRAR15Guy56
You sound like a Fascist yourself. Disagree with you and everyone is an idiot. Sounds like classic fascism to me
To: Dark Nerd
Liberty is allowing someone to overtly cause harm to our country? I don't understand the use of the word liberty in this context.Please explain Thanks
Comment #18 Removed by Moderator
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson