Isn't Sedition a felony?

[hootinholler]

Sedition being the subversion of constitutional law...

Er, on edit: I should have put that the other way around, that the subversion of constitutional law is sedition.


It certainly seems to me there is a case for sedition in Mr. Kucinich's articles, just to pile on the charges. Numerous felony charges can be brought simply by presenting them to a grand jury. Holding office, even the Presidency does not preclude indictment. It only needs a brave prosecutor.

-Hoot

[SDuderstadt]

1. Absolutely wrong....

The President cannot be indicted while still in office. The reason for this is to prevent the opposition from "interfering" with the President in the discharge of his duties by entangling him in a criminal process. If you recall correctly, the SCOTUS had to hear whether Clinton could even be subjected to a civil trial while he was still serving. If it's possible to indict a President on criminal charges while still in office, why would the Supremes have to decide whether he could be sued civilly? Beyond that, if you'll remember correctly, during Watergate Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator. Again, if a President can be indicted while still in office, why was Nixon not indicted?

Beyond that, that's why impeachment is featured so prominently in the Constitution. If someone wants to charge the President criminally, they'd have to impeach him first, the Senate would have to convict, upon which case removal from office is automatic (contrary to what some claim, the Senate doesn't "decide the punishment", they actually have the sole power to try impeachments and decide guilt or innocence.

[hootinholler]

4. It's the difference between a civil and criminal case

I may be wrong but as I remember it Clinton requested a stay of the suit, claiming distraction from office, which is what went to the supremes. The indictment can certainly be returned while in office. It could also be sealed by the court.

As to Nixon, it's because the grand jury didn't return the indictment. No one who wasn't in the room should know why he remained unindicted. If the prosecutor led them to the belief the president is unindictable, then he did Nixon a great favor. The constitution clearly states the president shall be the president until removed by conviction in the Senate. Impeachment or lack thereof does not preclude indictment. Indictment is not mentioned in the context of an impeachment, other than possibly precluding pardons, but that's thin ice to hang your hat on in claiming immunity from indictment. It does specify that the President shall faithfully execute the law.

-Hoot

[SDuderstadt]

10. Wrong again...

He cannot be indicted while still in office...that's why impeachment is necessary. To remove him from office so he can be charged.

[Wizard777]

6. Impeachment is Indictment of the President. the House functions as a Grand Jury.

Then the Senate serves as a Jury of his peers for his trial on the Indictment from the House.

[SDuderstadt]

9. Not in a criminal sense...

it's a political process

[SDuderstadt]

11. DOJ legal opinion

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

[Wizard777]

12. Just an opinion. No where in the Constiution is the President given immunity.

The closest the come to justification is suggesting That it was so commonly known. It didn't need to be written into the Constiution. Bull Shit!

[SDuderstadt]

13. It isn't bullshit and it's silly to suggest that itt's just...

an opinion. It's a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel of the AG's office and, in the absence of the Supreme Court ruling, is the closest thing to an actual ruling one can get, although it certainly would be trumped if the Supremes actually ruled on it. In recent history, the OLC addressed it during the Nixon era and it was addressed again during the waning moments of Clinton's presidency as it was rumored that Ken Starr was going to try to indict Clinton.

You might not like it, but the opinion is right on, otherwise the opposition party could gin up some sort of charges, find a willing prosecutor (and grand jury) and indict the President and effectively cripple the Executive branch. Legal opinions don't just reflect the wishful thinking of the author, instead it is grounded in various cases and also reflects the thinking of the framers. Have you ever read the debates surrounding the adoption of the constitution? Do you know why the framers made impeachment a part of the constitution? What was their reasoning behind the separation of powers?

If you think I'm wrong, ask yourselves again why the SCOTUS had to give Jones the greenlight to proceed with her civil case while Clinton was still in office. If, as some here are suggesting, the President can be indicted while still in office, why would a plaintiff in a civil case need leave from the Supremes to proceed with her case against Clinton? Again, that's why impeachment features so prominently in the constitution. It is a political mechanism designed to remove a president from office precisely so he could face criminal charges, although that would not necessarily be the case nor would it be a requirement, as the framers gave the House broad powers in their sole power to impeach, relying only a finding of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It's simply not true that a President can be indicted while still in office and, whether it is a matter of law or merely tradition makes little, if any, difference.

[gullwing300]

2. Be very careful what you wish for. If you think "free speech zones" are bad,

imagine how "sedition" laws might be used against dissenters.
:scared:

[uberllama42]

3. Sedition is not the subversion of constitutional law

Sedition, n.
1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. Archaic. rebellious disorder.

from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sedition

If there is a specific name for subverting the Constitution, I do no know it. But it is not sedition. Bush has certainly violated his oath of office, but he has not advocated the overthrow of his regime or otherwise started a rebellion.

[hootinholler]

5. I misspoke, I should have said

Subversion of constitutional law is sedition. A subtle but important difference.

Ordering illegal acts is sedition.

-Hoot

[Wizard777]

7. Ordering illegal acts is Conspiracy. If you hire a hitman. That's conspiracy to commit murder.

[Wizard777]

8. It can be sedition. The Constiution is our Government.

[Winterblues]

14. So would it be sedition to advocate the overthrow of the Constitution

or the Overthrow of the Bush* Administration because of how they disregard the Constitution? To back the overthrow of the Bush* Administration to save the Constitution could not possibly be sedition IMO. On the other hand to publically back the dismantlement of the Constitution as in eliminating Habeas Corpus or enabling Torture or warrantless searches or imprisonment without due process. IMO that really is Sedition.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Trying to overthrow the Bush administration would, in fact, be..

sedition. As much as I despise him, I also prize the orderly transition of government that is one of the hallmarks of democracy. That's why the Constitition features impeachment so prominently and that is the mechanism to be used, not trying to overthrow the government. I don't think you'd fare very well against troops who have sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Although I sympathize with you, I would clearly be on the side of the troops in an insurrection.

[uberllama42]

16. I agree n/t