Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein appeared on NBC’s “The Chris Matthews Show” on April 18th and stated that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck were close to committing acts of sedition.
The moronic talking heads of the Main Stream Media, like Joe Klein, just throw around incendiary words to create controversy and keep people talking about THEM. They also serve as propagandists for the government, offering up not-so-subtle hints of Federal retaliation at some future point.
Klein provided the legal definition of sedition, which is “a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority.” And, because sedition has been declared a felony in Supreme Court opinions. the accusation could be considered pretty serious.
Seems to me that the legal definition needs some further examination.
The legal definition of revolt is defined: “the offence consists in the endeavor of the crew of a vessel, or any one or more of them, to overthrow the legitimate authority of her commander, with intent to remove him from his command; or against his will to take possession of the vessel by assuming the government and navigation of her; or by transferring their obedience from the lawful commander to some other person.” But that definition is a maritime definition, not a government/citizen definition.
The dictionary goes on to say that “revolt and rebellion are nearly synonymous, and is the state of citizens who unjustly take up arms against the prince or government.” But that is just the opinion of the dictionary’s writers, not a legal definition.
Congress did define “sedition” in the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. The Sedition Act expired on March 3, 1801, coinciding with the end of the Adams administration. Makes for interesting reading, and could have been enacted by this present paranoid Congress in 2010. It stated “That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty; and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.”
OK, now consider the definition of the word “unjustly,” found in the dictionary’s opinion. The American Heritage Dictionary says it is “violating principles of justice or fairness.” So to unjustly take up arms against the government would require the citizens to violate principles of justice.
What’s justice? The same legal dictionary used above defines it as: 1) fairness. 2) moral rightness. 3) a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.
No honest person with two brain cells to rub together could call our system of law any form of “justice.” No American citizens are receiving ALL their natural and legal rights from the DC system. First, no natural rights flow from DC, but from God. Second, DC is stealing legal rights from citizens at a NASCAR pace.
The various “Patriot” groups around the country who are demonstrating, rallying and advocating for nullification and interposition against the Federal Government are indeed falling under the Supreme Court’s understanding of sedition, as Pennsylvania v. Nelson defers to Pennsylvania Penal Code § 207 for its definition of “sedition,” one clause which says (c) To incite or encourage any person to commit any overt act with a view to bringing the Government of this State or of the United States into hatred or contempt.
So, the Supreme Court says sedition is mutiny, but could also be inciting others to hatred or contempt of The United States. Congress said it was effectively any resistance to any Government action.
Is the act of secession an act of sedition? No it is not. Secession does not overthrow ships, nor does it foment the UNJUST taking up of arms against government tyranny (it would be good if secession did advocate the JUST taking up of arms to resist government tyranny. That is the function of a state militia.) It does not incite hatred or contempt.
It does, however, offer the perfect method of resistance to Federal tyranny. Secession does not in any way seek to overthrow or change the present Federal government. It simply seeks to opt out…leave…bug out…quit…fire its agent…or any number of other ways to state that the state seeks sovereignty.
And, please remember Klein’s definition. “Against established authority” is the phrase he hung his hat on. But the only lawful “established authority” for the United States is the US Constitution. All of the patriot groups are demonstrating for the United States government to stay within the strict authority of the Constitution. Seems to me that the US Federal Government is the one who is committing daily acts of sedition by exceeding their Constitutional authority.
Secession is not sedition. Secession is ending a dysfunctional relationship peacefully by leaving the relationship. In civil family law, it’s called a divorce.
Secession is the hope for humanity. Who will be first?
DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.
© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.