• mriguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        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…

          • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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

              • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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

                  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Oh you do do you? 🤣

                    Then please - explain the law to me citing case-law to support your argument. Which should be easy given your vast knowledge on the topic.

              • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                And just to remind people - there was a time when preaching “communist views” was seen as “seditious”.

                • FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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 :)

            • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                “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.

                • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.