We look at the definition of treason in the Constitution, conclude that unless we can prove she’s acting on behalf of a foreign power, it isn’t treason, call it sedition, which it clearly IS, and go from there.
“Sedition usually involves actually conspiring to disrupt the legal operation of the government and is beyond expression of an opinion or protesting government policy.”
I love when liberals just want to throw out the first amendment…
As an elected official she is allowed a political opinion. Even an unpopular one. The first amendment protections for political speech are very strong.
She needs to have done something or supported something in furtherance of that goal.
The issue is that you don’t even KNOW the law you are blabbering about. And please note that I’m not even American but still know your system better than you.
Must be all that not blind partisanship keeping you from understanding the reality around you
Problem is that communist views don’t threaten the American constitution as the case Yates Vs. United States has confirmed. With this decision the high court has set a precedent where a distinction was made between political positions that advocate for abstract points are not the same as advocating for immediate or future actions.
Since this beast of a woman has already shown her disregard for the American constitution by supporting the people who tried to golpe the political system, adding another tally to the treasonous list must not be a big deal for you, who are such an enlightened centrist.
Not a conservative but not an intelligent person either I see. You therefore must be a centrist :)
And everyone else is allowed their opinions too. And the idea that someone who wants to dissolve the country shouldn’t be in Congress doesn’t seem like it should be that controversial.
“Shouldn’t” and “can’t” are very different things. She absolutely shouldn’t be in congress. But that doesn’t mean we can interpret laws anyway we want.
I don’t see “can’t” anywhere in this thread before your comment. Just a bunch of speculation about if what she’s doing counts as sedition. And that discussion is absolutely protected by the first amendment.
Let’s do a quick thought experiment and say there was an actual legal framework for states to leave the union. How do Republicans think that would go? Under no circumstances would any major city in the south go along with leaving. Republicans states are far more purple than elections would suggest due to voter suppression, election fraud, and gerrymandering. So in reality the confederate areas would just be poor rural areas. Add in the fact that the US holds the keys to all the military equipment and weapons, the confederate areas would turn into a lawless hell scape over night. And without nuclear weapons and no international agreements for defense, I’m sure Mexico and Cuba would love to reclaim some of their lost territory.
I can go on. But the main reason these idiots keep bringing this up is to suggest violence into getting their way. It’s not even a viable option to even consider for them. The situation I made is a best case scenario for them to. If they tried to violently leave the union it would be couple million good old boys in trucks up against jets and tanks.
Breaking News: MTG says controversial shit to stay in the news cycle.
Sure, but at what point do we say “this is treason” and do something about it?
We look at the definition of treason in the Constitution, conclude that unless we can prove she’s acting on behalf of a foreign power, it isn’t treason, call it sedition, which it clearly IS, and go from there.
Fine. When is that going to happen?
Clearly eh?
“Sedition usually involves actually conspiring to disrupt the legal operation of the government and is beyond expression of an opinion or protesting government policy.”
I love when liberals just want to throw out the first amendment…
deleted by creator
As an elected official she is allowed a political opinion. Even an unpopular one. The first amendment protections for political speech are very strong.
She needs to have done something or supported something in furtherance of that goal.
Ah-eh, support of the sedicious insurrection happened on January the 6th 2022 is still not enough to be qualified as “something”?
I love when conservatives pull shit like these comments out of their brains to defend the human garbage they voted into Congress
rofl - not a conservative buddy. Not by a long-shot. I’m just not a blind partisan who thinks laws mean what I want them to mean.
The issue is that you don’t even KNOW the law you are blabbering about. And please note that I’m not even American but still know your system better than you.
Must be all that not blind partisanship keeping you from understanding the reality around you
And just to remind people - there was a time when preaching “communist views” was seen as “seditious”.
Problem is that communist views don’t threaten the American constitution as the case Yates Vs. United States has confirmed. With this decision the high court has set a precedent where a distinction was made between political positions that advocate for abstract points are not the same as advocating for immediate or future actions.
Since this beast of a woman has already shown her disregard for the American constitution by supporting the people who tried to golpe the political system, adding another tally to the treasonous list must not be a big deal for you, who are such an enlightened centrist.
Not a conservative but not an intelligent person either I see. You therefore must be a centrist :)
And everyone else is allowed their opinions too. And the idea that someone who wants to dissolve the country shouldn’t be in Congress doesn’t seem like it should be that controversial.
“Shouldn’t” and “can’t” are very different things. She absolutely shouldn’t be in congress. But that doesn’t mean we can interpret laws anyway we want.
I don’t see “can’t” anywhere in this thread before your comment. Just a bunch of speculation about if what she’s doing counts as sedition. And that discussion is absolutely protected by the first amendment.
I think that depends on how the cases against 45 go.
She’s a Republican, so I’m guessing we’ll normalize it forever.
Let’s do a quick thought experiment and say there was an actual legal framework for states to leave the union. How do Republicans think that would go? Under no circumstances would any major city in the south go along with leaving. Republicans states are far more purple than elections would suggest due to voter suppression, election fraud, and gerrymandering. So in reality the confederate areas would just be poor rural areas. Add in the fact that the US holds the keys to all the military equipment and weapons, the confederate areas would turn into a lawless hell scape over night. And without nuclear weapons and no international agreements for defense, I’m sure Mexico and Cuba would love to reclaim some of their lost territory.
I can go on. But the main reason these idiots keep bringing this up is to suggest violence into getting their way. It’s not even a viable option to even consider for them. The situation I made is a best case scenario for them to. If they tried to violently leave the union it would be couple million good old boys in trucks up against jets and tanks.