Treason and Sedition

Article III of the Constitution defines treason against the United States in three ways: levying war against the country, adhering to the country's enemies, or giving aid or comfort to enemies. The punishment for treason is death, but the article requires a high burden of proof. It is the only crime defined in the Constitution.

Sedition, on the other hand, is defined by statute and has a lower burden of proof. Sedition is an attempt to disrupt or overthrow the constitutional government of the United States or incite resistance to lawful authority. Here is the relevant US Code:

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof (Emphasis mine)

The statute was written before YouTube, but a video calling for violent overthrow of the democratically elected President of the United States certainly qualifies as "sedition." So does this video:

Mind you, that one comes from the National Association of Rural Landowners -- one of the sponsors of the 9/12 "tea parties." That's how far this kind of un-American rhetoric has penetrated the mainstream conservative movement.

When the right-wing website NewsMax.com ran a John Perry column praising the idea of a military coup against the president, they were also engaging in sedition. NewsMax wisely pulled the column, but Perry's rhetoric is only growing more common with a new burst of militia movement activity. Sedition keeps showing up on talk radio: Michale Savage has pined for armed revolt on the air, and Jim Quinn has called for riots. The callers can be even worse:

You would think that Republicans, being the party of law and order, would move quickly to condemn this kind of speech. But in fact, they both enable and encourage it. Texas Governor Rick Perry famously invoked the spectre of secession against stimulus spending and health care reform; Republicans regularly stovepipe policy statements through FreeRepublic.com, whose founder openly advocates the overthrow and removal of the entire US government.

When Michele Bachmann asked listeners to be "armed and dangerous" on cap & trade, it wasn't her first use of a violent metaphor. She has spoken of "slitting our wrists" to become "blood brothers" in defeating health care reform. In her speech, culture wars are conflated with potential violence in an atmosphere of insurrection. Bachmann has repeatedly curried favor with birther website World Net Daily, which now campaigns for Obama's impeachment.

Of course, this is all just rhetoric -- so far. It is a right-wing fantasy of reversing last November's democratic election, replacing it with a 'return' to some mythical golden age through the violence of an armed minority. It is the same as saying we know better than the majority and have the guns to prove it.

That is the very definition of fascism.

We have already seen sedition; the first shot fired would definitely qualify as "levying war against the United States" -- treason.

Let us dare to call these things by their proper names.

 

 

Osborne Ink is a Website of Media Deconstruction

 

Follow Matt Osborne on Twitter: www.twitter.com/OsborneInk

Comments

[grk96]

Here's another federal law that Ms. Bachman and Fox News have conspired to violate . . .

United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 29, Section 6

It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government as defined in section 7322 (1) of title 5, United States Code, to engage in, or not to engage in, any political activity, including, but not limited to, voting or refusing to vote for any candidate or measure in any election, making or refusing to make any political contribution, or working or refusing to work on behalf of any candidate. Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

[TwinX]

Thanks for the article Matt.

You helped clarify a lot of things that have been troubling me as I range around certain 'patriot' websites.

[BruiserND]

One Party Rule ...cram down appropriations and legislation without open and thorough debate is not "representative government " .

America is not a mob rule Democracy it is a Constitutional Republic.

"We won , get over it " has consequences.

[Matt Osborne - Huffpost Blogger]

We are a democratic republic. That's the "we the people" part. Remember that? The founders knew their Aristotle. They created a mixed system.

As for one party rule: I despise the idea, but unless the GOP can eject the insanity and racist demagoguery from its ranks they are doomed to extinction. One party rule might become an unfortunate reality.

[grk96]

United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 29, Section 6

It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government as defined in section 7322 (1) of title 5, United States Code, to engage in, or not to engage in, any political activity, including, but not limited to, voting or refusing to vote for any candidate or measure in any election, making or refusing to make any political contribution, or working or refusing to work on behalf of any candidate. Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

[alenaspoppa]

I'm just curious as to what you'd call the Bush years (especially the first 6). Was that not "one party rule?"

[lafayette2009]

The Sedition Act of 1918 (May 16, 1918) was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who was concerned that dissent, in time of war, was a significant threat to morale. The passing of this act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime.

Freedom of speech in the United States is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or the press.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Sedition Act at the time it was in effect in Debs v. United States, but subsequent Supreme Court decisions (such as Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969) make it unlikely that similar legislation would be considered constitutional today.

The Espionage Act made it a crime to help enemies of the United States, but the Sedition Act made it a crime to utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States' form of government.

However one looks at what is happening now, the fact is that the thetoric and underlying threats to civility and to the President are enough to raise big red flags.

[OldBro70]

These words spoken by the announcer on the video sure sounds like a warning that something terrible is about to occur. The constant repeating of the phrase "Tell them" conjures up visions of chaos, over throw of legal forms of government whether local, county, state and federal government.

This must be exposed and measures must be taken to keep these groups under observation so they can be brought to light and if necessary brought to justice. Those of us who are Americans who love our freedoms must be vigilant to protect our liberties from not only terrorists but also domestic terrorists who would have the domonion over us. We must refuse to hear the voices of fear, hatred, lies, distortions, divisions, racists, fear mongers and traitors no matter how enticing they might sound.

[Matt Osborne - Huffpost Blogger]

When I took the oath of enlistment, I vowed to defend the United States against ALL enemies -- foreign AND domestic.

[dfranz]

My main questions are; When will there be accountability? What happens if some deranged believer acts upon the words of these people? Are they liable for causing it? Is it strictly about First Amendment rights?

It is particularily disconcerting to hear elected officials making statements that seem to condone this way of thinking such as Rick Perry of Texas.

We have laws in the country about hate crimes but aparantly hate speech isn't a crime. These people on the Right who advocate overthrow are unpatriotic at best and traitors at worst. Their behavior and oratory must be repudiated in the strongest way. If they cross the line law enforcement must act strongly and decisively.

[Matt Osborne - Huffpost Blogger]

America is very, very generous with speech. There are many perfectly free and democratic countries where this level of speech would not be tolerated AT ALL.

[WorkingClass]

The wing nuts are right. We need a revolution. Its either that or remain serfs. What we don't need is civil war.

[Matt Osborne - Huffpost Blogger]

That's one of the telltale things about this hate speech, WorkingClass -- it's violent in content and in character. The wingnut mind simply cannot imagine a way forward through non-violence.

[minithings]

Do you know all that we have missed by letting these people into our living rooms. Why don't the media just put KKK hats on. And it's worse than that. I received a notice in an email where I work, at a place very like a high end magazine or newspaper that I had better join the right church, because my Presbyterian church was pagan. Then I looked up this on the internet and found a piece that said "how to tell if your church is being taken over by fundamentalists". The first thing was if they removed all the hymnals. I'm more of an Easter and Christmas Christian and the rest is my business. I don't know if the hymnals are gone but If they ever are... do you know what a hissy fit is? I have heard that the fundamentalist churches, many of them, have rock and roll bands, sexy singers and light shows. That's fine... at a Rolling Stones concert. Those stir the emotions and get the adrenaline flowing but that would come between me and a peaceful contact with God. God, I think should be "draw" enough. The rest is just manipulation. And finally people are beginning to prove it. Read Republican Gomorrah, by Max Blumenthal and check whether church leaders belong to a group that is trying to get power and money for themselves.

[Matt Osborne - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, the link to Blumenthal's book is here:

http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Gomorrah-Inside-Movement-Shattered/dp/1568583982/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255111205&sr=1-1

[HANNIBAL1066]

All the points about what they have said are correct, but they are covered under the First Amendment. Yes, they are flirting with sedition. But, prosecution for seditious speech requires that the speech leads to almost immediate dangerous action. That requirement is not present. The following from a respectable law journal website might help. "Finally, the Court has held that mere criticism of government may not be suppressed. The First Amendment permits punishment of seditious utterances only if they expressly advocate immediate unlawful action and are likely to produce such action imminently (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)). In effect, the Court's affirmation of our "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" renders the traditional crime of seditious libel unconstitutional (New York Times Co., 270)." Citation at http://law.jrank.org/pages/2028/Sedition-Domestic-Terrorism-Sedition-First-Amendment.html">Sedition and Domestic Terrorism - Sedition And The First Amendment

[Matt Osborne - Huffpost Blogger]

HANNIBAL1066, if you read the article again you'll note that I said absolutely nothing about prosecution. On the contrary: "Let us dare to call these things by their proper names" is a call to meet speech with SPEECH.

[ephoenix5]

Excellent article. It was needed. Sedition and a reminder of its definition needs to make a big wave now in the main stream media -- a few prosecutions wouldn't hurt either.

[Matt Osborne - Huffpost Blogger]

I leave prosecutions up to prosecutors. For our part, we just need to use the right words.

[Lori Bowles]

Repub Mark Kirk told China "not to trust the US Budget numbers" in order to build their trust in us, undercutting President Obama's message, people gasped. Then Repub Demint took a plane blatantly against US policy to Honduras to do what-ever he did, people gasped again. These people have crossed the line maybe they didn't fire the first shot with a g.u.n but they sure to smell like g.u.n powder.

[Matt Osborne - Huffpost Blogger]

A whiff of grapeshot.

[Lori Bowles]

Might use less black powder but aimed right can do some real damage and rip skin.

[democracy7]

Agree, a lot of this retoric and tea bagging and encouraging violence, " to take back America" is nothing short of treason. The lunacy must stop.

[GrandmaBEE]

Don't forget the census worker murdered with the words Fed scrawled on his chest. I don't know what else these people have to do before legal action is taken. Showing up to a Presidents speech armed?

[independentcynic1228]

I've heard this same argument come up about 3 or 4 years ago from extreme liberals who wanted to break away from the government because they didn't like GW. It goes back and forth. Regardless of your reasoning why, unless the goverment no longer acts in the interest of the people (i.e for example the president decides he no longer has to be elected to hold office and we become some kind of dictatorship, and I'm not even implying Obama would do that, i'm using the office as an example not the man) then yes, the people would have a right to use that constitutional right. But just because a guy is in office you don't like, then too bad. I don't agree with everything Obama has done and I sure as hell saw alot of things GW did I didn't like, but regardless, niether one did or has done anything that would fit into the definition as defined by the constitution.

[Jubal Harshaw]

Excellent article Matt. You nailed it. Keep it up, you're doing great.

[Matt Osborne - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks Jubal!

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

(continued - 3)

If we were using the rules as laid out in Schenck (upholding the 1917 Sedition Act), half of the people at Fox News would be in jail by now. Our rules today are much more lenient, but even by these historically lax rules, you have hit the nail on the head -- advocating the overthrow of the US government, no matter how much you wrap yourself in the label of "patriot," is illegal. So you're right, we should all call sedition (when we see it) for what it really is.

Keep up the good work, Matt, and we should all take your point and start calling sedition for what it is.

-CW

[S1m0n]

"...advocating the overthrow of the US government, no matter how much you wrap yourself in the label of "patriot," is illegal."

Isn't overthrowing the government, when necessary, what the second amendment is for?

[democracy7]

No, if that were the case then the civil war would have ended the United States in its entirety.

[Matt Osborne - Huffpost Blogger]

Actually, no. The point of the 2nd Amendment was to make a national defense possible without a large standing army, which was the bane of European taxpayers at the time. Our modern full-time military would shock the founders. But it's worth pointing out that the "citizen militia" experiment was a complete, utter failure (see: Bladensburg, Bull Run)

[Matt Osborne - Huffpost Blogger]

Whew! Thanks for the extended comment, Chris! It's always good to have historical context.

[pajoly]

I applaud the essay. And by not addressing it and tolerating sedition, we are enabling and emboldening it. Were authorities to arrest someone prominent and charge them with sedition, you'd see Tea Baggers riot, claiming government was assaulting the First Amendment. The media should be educating the public on the definitions and limits of free speech and teaching where the line might be when Free Speech becomes seditious.

[Matt Osborne - Huffpost Blogger]

pajoly, you didn't get your name from a TS Stribling character, did you?!

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

(continued - 2)

The original definition of "sedition" from 1798 (Alien and Sedition Acts) was saying, writing, or printing anything "false, scandalous, and malicious" about the government, the president, or Congress "with intent to defame."

It was used politically, and newspaper editors and a member of Congress were jailed under it.

The "fire" talked about in Schenck was distributing a leaflet which used the language of the Constitution to argue that the military draft for WWI was illegal. The guy got six months. He was lucky -- others got much longer sentences for the same thing.

This was just speaking out against a wartime draft, mind you, not advocating the overthrow of the government in any way shape or form.

THAT was the original "fire" -- a fact which we are simply not taught in school, even though just about everyone can quote the "shouting fire" line today. Its also the origin of "clear and present danger" as well, but nobody remembers that, either.

More on Schenck from a while back:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/an-antiwar-march-sc_b_64779.html

(cont.)