U.S. Constitution

U.S. Constitution
The voice of the people

05 December 2020

Concerning Sedition

On his Youtube show of December 1, David Pakman made the excellent point that Lame Duck Trump, grasping at the smallest imaginable straws in an insane attempt to overturn the presidential election, repeatedly commits sedition.

Because that's not a word most of us use frequently, here's the Merriam-Webster definition: "incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority." Yes, that sounds like what Trump does when he tries to rally his army of gun-totin' knuckle draggers. So why hasn't he been called out on it?

Because, dear readers, except for a few months at the end of WWI, we haven't had a law against sedition since 1801. That law was the first real test of the First Amendment right to free speech, and the amendment won. The Sedition Act of 1798 was on the books only about three years.

Laws against sedition are fairly common around the world. They are most commonly found in less-than-democratic nations as you might expect, but they also show up in otherwise freedom-loving European monarchies, where badmouthing the royal family is a crime.

Here in the good old U.S. of A. we fiercely defend our right to speak freely, and defend even the right to say things we abhor. As Voltaire allegedly said, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Few of us who are not military would readily contemplate that kind of sacrifice. But there are some things being said by the Litigant-in-Chief that seem to many of us to to require a strong response.

Can we do anything about it? Well, maybe. Tucked away in Title 18 of the U. S. Code is 18 USC § 2385, which provides penalties including up to 20 years in prison for advocating overthrow of the government. Here is part of it: 

"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, . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction."¹

This is a de facto sedition act. I think there is evidence that Trump has, by attempting to subvert this country's electoral process, by attempting to dismantle the postal service, by attempting to end Congress' oversight of the Executive Branch, and by inciting violence against state governments, has violated the act.

At this point I doubt anyone with the power would charge him, although his threat to withdraw funding from the military is surely a grave threat to national security. He may be found immune to the charge now, but maybe the FBI will add it to the list of his offenses and swoop in to gather him up after the Biden inauguration.

I can dream, can't I?

--- Diogenes, 12/5/2020


¹ Legal Information Institute, Cornell University: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

01 December 2020

National Review Sees The Light

When we relaunched Vox Populi last winter I commented that we were not a breaking news outlet, but a small voice in a big wilderness speaking out against Trump and his administration.

Still, I've consistently seen major news outlets say the same things I've been saying, although with a bit more restraint. Not that they heard it from me; I'm not prone to hubris. But it's nice to have one's voice reinforced.

Latest to join the chorus denouncing Trump has been the National Review. This is, as far as I know, unprecedented. The journal was founded by arch-conservative William F. Buckley, and it has been the source of many a Republican wet dream. 

Having temporarily slipped into the Trump cesspool a while back, the editors have recovered sufficiently to actually speak the truth. The article says in part, "make no mistake: The chief driver of the post-election contention of the past several weeks is the petulant refusal of one man to accept the verdict of the American people. The Trump team (and much of the GOP) is working backwards, desperately trying to find something, anything to support the president’s aggrieved feelings, rather than objectively considering the evidence and reacting as warranted."¹

Wow! You have to understand that this biweekly journal is probably the most ultra-conservative publication in English. It no longer has the erudition and intellectual potency of Buckley at the helm, but it is probably the most important source of conservative opinion for right-wingers who don't get all their news from Facebook or Twitter.

Well done, NR editors. Welcome to the real world.

--- Diogenes, 12/1/2020

¹ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/trump-election-fraud-disgraceful-endgame/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first