Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you look at the fact in Brandenberg, you have a Klan "leader" inviting a a TV crew to a cross burning. A couple of Klan knuckleheads are holding firearms while the leader (I assume Brandenberg) goes off on some essentially unintelligible rant about blacks and Jews with veiled threats about reaping vengeance on the government if it didn't uphold the white race and flower of white womanhood (or some such). The Court quite correctly reversed the conviction based upon the obviously harmless nature of the speech and actions being advocated, pretty much like most of the nonsense on this forum.
But as Douglas points out,
"These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
So, again, your blanket sanction for any form of violent advocacy under the 1st Amendment simply isn't supported by Brandenberg. Does Brandenberg present a number of prosecutorial hurdles, it most certainly does, but our debate began when I pointed out that advocating the violent overthrow of the government wasn't treasonous, but certainly a criminal act. I maintain that even under Brandenberg, presented with the right set of facts, that Congress was well within its constitutional purview when it enacted § 2385 in 2006.
There apparently is no enforceable law specific to overthrowing the government now other than treason, if done in conjunction with an enemy of the United States, or normal criminal laws of assault, murder, conspiracy, destruction of govt. property, etc.
Who committed the treason???
Those for the Constitution of the United States of America, or those violating it?
Not sure the civil war can properly be considered treason since it was basicallly one set of states against another with no involvement of a foreign power. Were the seceding states formally declared an enemy of the United States? Following the blanket amnesty after the war no such prosecutions ensued so the courts never had to decide this.
Exactly! Another nation has to be involved.
Treason?
Organized assault?
Isn't that what ATF is for... AKA Waco and many other attacks on organized revolutions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
