The Sedition Act of 1798

self, congress | 1798 | self, congress

[inquest]

That's true. In addition, there was an incident where some Marine officers were heckling a Republican congressman at the theater, for his opposition to the quasi-war with France. The congressman complained to the President, but nothing was done about it, and in fact the congressman was reprimanded by Federalists in Congress for supposedly not going through the proper channels.

All that said, any law can be enforced in a partisan fashion. Certainly the same can be said of certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act, such as those that define terrorism in terms of violence or "intimidation" that's supposedly designed to compel government to alter its behavior in some way. The first amendment can be a tough thing to nail down.

[rustbucket]

Earlier you made a comment about the Sedition Act not being a violation of the First Amendment. I'd seen the text of the Sedition Act and wondered about that myself, although I believe in practice that it was a violation of the First Amendment.

From the Thomas Cooper link I provided above, here are some comments on the Constitutionality of the Sedition Act based on Jefferson and Madison's thoughts about the issue:

The resolution continued by spelling out why the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. With respect to the Sedition Act, the second resolve reasoned that the states delegated to Congress the power to punish but a few specific crimes, such as treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. Thus, in light of the Tenth Amendment's unmistakable declaration that what is not given is reserved, the Sedition Act failed constitutional examination.

The third resolve examined the Sedition Act in light of the First Amendment. Jefferson argued that because the First Amendment operated as a restraint only on the national government, the states "retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech ... may be abridged" (Virginia Commission 1964, 14). Though today it seems obvious that the Sedition Act was a violation of the First Amendment, in 1798 that understanding was not universal, and Jefferson's argument was in the libertarian vanguard.

[inquest]

With respect to the Sedition Act, the second resolve reasoned that the states delegated to Congress the power to punish but a few specific crimes, such as treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. Thus, in light of the Tenth Amendment's unmistakable declaration that what is not given is reserved, the Sedition Act failed constitutional examination.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to punish any act of violence done to its officers. I'm not sure how many Founders would have agreed about this.

Jefferson's other point about the first amendment is tempting to agree with, but again, it makes the federal government dependent upon the states for its ability to defend itself against libel, slander, and even outright threats. The Constitution was written with the intention of enabling the federal government to operate without the assistance of the states, in contrast to the way it was forced to operate under the Articles of Confederation.

[rustbucket]

Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to punish any act of violence done to its officers. I'm not sure how many Founders would have agreed about this.

The Founders didn't specifically list murder in the Constitution although it was certainly a recognized crime. I imagine that at the time of the Sedition Act ordinary cases of murder were handled by the state courts, just like ordinary cases of libel. Crimes committed in the course of breaking laws that were specifically delegated to the US Congress (treason, piracy, counterfeiting, etc.) might have fallen under the following Constitutional powers of Congress:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

What is the definition of a federal crime as opposed to a state crime? The Federal Criminal Code deals with treason, smuggling, counterfeiting and the like which might seem to fall under the Constitution per the above clause, but it also deals with street gangs, kidnapping, domestic violence, stalking, etc. How did these latter items become to be considered federal crimes? Did the Federal Government simply assert that they had jurisdiction?

The Constitution was written with the intention of enabling the federal government to operate without the assistance of the states, in contrast to the way it was forced to operate under the Articles of Confederation.

In certain spheres it did operate independently of the states. The Federal Government was delegated the power to conduct foreign affairs, coin money, negotiate treaties, etc. The bulk of the ordinary course of life remained governed by state and local governments so long as their laws did not violate the Constitution. We have (or had) a federal form of government, not a national one.

[inquest]

So when those insurgents tarred and feathered the tax collectors during the Whiskey Rebellion, the federal government had no power to prosecute them? Even if the state authorities were entirely unwilling to?

[rustbucket]

So when those insurgents tarred and feathered the tax collectors during the Whiskey Rebellion, the federal government had no power to prosecute them? Even if the state authorities were entirely unwilling to?

From the Constitution again:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

The whiskey tax was an excise tax that Hamilton conceived to pay off state debts the Federal Government had assumed. Sounds like the Feds had the right under the Constitution to impose the tax and enforce it. As I remember, the Feds used Pennsylvania militia to put down the rebellion.

The whiskey tax was very unpopular in more places than just Pennsylvania. Jefferson repealed it and we didn't have another excise tax until the War Between The States.

I just visited the Louisiana home of a leader of the Whiskey Rebellion. He left Pennsylvania to avoid going to jail for the rebellion and set up a beautiful plantation in St. Francisville.

[inquest]

OK, so you quoted the provision that allows the feds to lay excises, but let's remember that the insurgents weren't being prosecuted for their failure to pay the taxes, but for their assaults on federal officers. Or, one might say, it was for their obstruction of the execution of federal laws. In either case, they were not being prosecuted under either of the "big three" federal crimes mentioned in the Constitution, but under crimes that were defined as interfering with the powers of the federal government. In substance this is the same justification for federal authority for the Sedition Act (at least in terms of the 10th amendment, though not necessarily of the first amendment).

[rustbucket]

I agree that the Whiskey rebels may have been prosecuted for failure to comply with the tax or with obstruction of the collection of the tax. Those clearly fall under the Constitution as I posted above.

I never said they were prosecuted under one of the "big three" federal crimes under the Constitution, as you term them. Nonetheless, they obstructed the execution of a Constitutionally valid federal law and could be prosecuted for it as a federal crime.

I disagree with your argument that this was the same in substance as the Sedition Act. That seems a stretch to me.

A lot of things could be construed as "interferring with the powers of the federal goverment" if a politician so wished. The Sedition Act was not well defined, as yankeedame correctly pointed out above. It is a poorly written act that had the practical result of supressing free press. To me that qualifies it as a violation of the First Amendment.

As a NARA web site states about the Sedition Act: "Future iterations of similar legislation that restrained free speech would be struck down through the process of judicial review. Before this, however, speaking out in opposition to governmental policies could have serious legal repercussions as seen in the case of United States v. Thomas Cooper."

The Sedition Act helped bring Jefferson to power, so it can't have been all bad.

[Texasforever]

What became of the 1918 sedition act?

[rustbucket]

What became of the 1918 sedition act?

I don't know. A quick perusal of Paul Johnson's "A History of the American People" indicates that people were prosecuted under it "for criticizing the Red Cross, the YMCA, and even the budget." Yikes!

[Texasforever]

The fact is that "sedition" is still a federal crime.

[rustbucket]

My dictionary defines sedition as "incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority." I can see where that could be a crime.

The prosecution of sedition seems to me to be a double-edged sword. It can be used against violent anarchists. In the wrong hands, however, it can be used to supress lawful opinion and dissent. Prosecution for criticizing the budget? Good heavens.

[Texasforever]

United States Code (18 USC 115 Section 2384). Google it up and then you may be able to use the information correctly instead of speculation.

[rustbucket]

2384 is the current law. Is Paul Johnson wrong that the 1918 law was used to prosecute people who criticized the budget, the YMCA, and the Red Cross?

I've found errors in Johnson's work before, so I wouldn't put it past him to be wrong. Perhaps you know the truth and could enlighten me.

[Texasforever]

2384 is the current law. Is Paul Johnson wrong that the 1918 law was used to prosecute people who criticized the budget, the YMCA, and the Red Cross?

No the 1918 law was very restrictive because of WW1. However; Many posts on boards such as DU would fall squarely under the present code should the government decide to use them. There are daily posts advocating that the UN come in and take over the United States along with very thinly veiled references to assassination of Bush and his Cabinet. ANY publication that actively calls for the violent overthrow of the government or any group that advocates such an act is subject to that law. The very fact that the Internet is full of such groups and publications should show you that the United States Government is very tolerant of these idiots.

[rustbucket]

We agree.