Sedition And Tyranny

I discuss the Sedition Act of 1918 and what it tells us about our rights and the government.

For some more background on this treasonous tyrannical law and its consequences, check out the Montana Sedition Project’s page.

Our treasonous overlords declared speaking ill of them is verboten. Of course, the Supreme Court agreed. Hence, men were thrown in prison for years because they dared to question government.

While this sounds like something out of Nazi Germany, it happened right here in the land of the free.

article:
fascistsoup.com...

I guess you missed this part eh?

It was repealed on December 13, 1920.

From your source.

While it was a stupid law that should have never existed, it was corrected. Thankfully we live in a country that can do that. Any law on the books today can be repealed through legislation.

[edit on 3/15/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Some important information from the Wikipedia link you provided that are quite important to the issue:

1) The Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed in 1920.

2) President Wilson also released or reduced the sentence of 200 prisoners taken under the act.

3) In 1969 the Brandenburg v. Ohio case created a judicial atmosphere where an act like the Sedition Act of 1918 could not be considered constitutional any more.

This law was a mistake, pure and simple, but holding the United States current government (particularly the courts) liable for the mistakes of the past, when they have been remedied and cannot happen again, is pure propaganda work.

This would be akin to blaming the current Emperor of Japan for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, it doesn't make any rational sense.

You're also quite wrong that the Supreme Court does not ever limit federal power, do some research next time you make such a blanket claim of evil, yours holds no weight.

In the future you may like this wiki for Supreme Court case info: www.scotuswiki.com...

I use it to keep up on cases myself, it's quite a nice tool.

Originally posted by whatukno
I guess you missed this part eh?

It was repealed on December 13, 1920.

From your source.

While it was a stupid law that should have never existed, it was corrected. Thankfully we live in a country that can do that. Any law on the books today can be repealed through legislation.

[edit on 3/15/2010 by whatukno]

I guess you didn't listen to the video.

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Some important information from the Wikipedia link you provided that are quite important to the issue:

1) The Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed in 1920.

2) President Wilson also released or reduced the sentence of 200 prisoners taken under the act.

3) In 1969 the Brandenburg v. Ohio case created a judicial atmosphere where an act like the Sedition Act of 1918 could not be considered constitutional any more.

This law was a mistake, pure and simple, but holding the United States current government (particularly the courts) liable for the mistakes of the past, when they have been remedied and cannot happen again, is pure propaganda work.

This would be akin to blaming the current Emperor of Japan for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, it doesn't make any rational sense.

You're also quite wrong that the Supreme Court does not ever limit federal power, do some research next time you make such a blanket claim of evil, yours holds no weight.

In the future you may like this wiki for Supreme Court case info: www.scotuswiki.com...

I use it to keep up on cases myself, it's quite a nice tool.

On blacks being protected citizens of the US:

“They [African Americans] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”

-Chief Justice Roger Taney

On racial segregation:

“We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.”

-Justice Henry Billings Brown

On the government’s authority to forcibly sterilize “imbeciles” and force vaccinations:

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”

-Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

On the federal government’s authority to govern every aspect of commerce:

“It is established beyond peradventure that the Commerce Clause of Art. I of the Constitution is a grant of plenary authority to Congress. That authority is… the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed.”

-Justice William Rehnquist





Yeah, just a few "mistakes" in there.

Mistakes which cost the freedom and lives of thousands.

The Supreme Court's track record of limiting federal power is piss poor. They abuse the commerce clause constantly, they abuse the general welfare clause constantly, they abuse necessary and proper constantly, they do nothing but abuse the constitution to the point of making it worthless.

99.99999% of federal legislation violates the constitution today.

reply to post by mnemeth1


What's the point? Why should I listen to someone ramble on about a law that no longer exists? What dire warning are we supposed to listen to about a dead law?

Lemme guess, you would rather have anarchy, because that would be so much better

Can I clue you in real quick?

Anarchy is fine if it's just you and your buds, it doesn't work on a national scale. I know you think, but I'm cool, everyone would be cool. It wouldn't work like that, you take away a governing body, what you have left is someone much bigger and stronger than you coming to take away anything they want, with you being able to do little to nothing about it.

Remember you want anarchy right? That means no "pig cops" to come help you when some psychopath decides to come to your house and pump round after round into you or your family.

If you happen to survive, what hospital would you go to? And what could you barter with the medics there to patch you up? Each invasion you would have less and less, and you would be weaker and weaker. Till you either join up under some warlord for protection, or die.

reply to post by whatukno


hahahah OK its clear you have no idea what "anarchy" is all about.

1. I'd subscribe to a private security force.

2. I'd subscribe to a private fire dept.

3. I'd have private health insurance and go to a top notch private hospital.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I see, so fantasy is what this is all about eh? Like I said, Anarchy works in small groups, not on a national scale.

1. I'd subscribe to a private security force.

I see, so you would hire blackwater. Might I suggest you ask member SpartanKingLeonidas how well that idea would turn out.

So who regulates them? What is to stop them from say... extorting bribes from you, you know "insisting that you pay for extra protection"?

2. I'd subscribe to a private fire dept.

So how much do you think a fire engine costs? Factor in maintenance of that vehicle, not to mention all the firefighting equipment, training, payroll, the firehouse building.

3. I'd have private health insurance and go to a top notch private hospital.

No government remember? So you have private health insurance eh? Well under anarchy there is no reason in the world they would have to pay for any procedure. I mean if you just want to throw money away that's your business. But what are you going to do if they don't pay for your procedure?

Can't sue em, no government remember? No government, no courts.

So they would happily take your insurance premiums but when you needed that insurance to go to that private hospital of yours. Why should they pay for something that obviously was a pre existing condition? Or if they did pay for that one procedure, what makes you think they wouldn't drop your policy the next day citing that you are too big a risk to carry?

(Yea, btw, with no government, how are you going to pay for all of this? No government means no treasury department, no central bank, and that means no currency.)



[edit on 3/15/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Wow, I cannot believe what I am hearing in this thread, so far.

Obviously, you've never read anything I've ever said about Blackwater.

It is a bypassing of our Constitution, completely, 100%, for our Government to outsource a military engagement, whether they write a law to cover it, it is a slippery slope when it concerns our Constitution.

Blackwater : Right-Wing Conservative America, Whether You Like It Or Not...

Anarchy is not about using a euphemism like Private Military Contractors, a poor whitewash if you will, for Mercenaries.

And while I do not necessarily support anarchy, I know the fine line and definition of it, and delineating something like an abuse of our Constitution, as a means to instill it as a replacement for current tyranny, is tantamount to trading one dictatorial fool, for another.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Anarchy

Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

"No rulership or enforced authority."

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."

"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."

"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."

"Act[ing] without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this."

Blackwater : Left-Wing Liberal America, & Shifting Alliance, Leading Because It's For Our Future...

You cannot preach anarchy when you are essentially trading it for Fascism.

There is a fine line between leading yourselves, as anarchy is supposed to go, allegedly, and trading off for a Fascist dictatorship, because what you are speaking about is aligning more closely with Fascism, not anarchy.

Every Time Someone Called You A Fascist, They Might Have Been Right, Is Your Ideology Fascist?

Trust me, I know the difference between Fascism, Nazism, and anarchy.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f0a6735a097.jpg[/atsimg]

The fasces was a symbol of Roman authority.

And without a governing body, anarchy can set in, but a "private" anything, military, or otherwise, borders and hedges on Hegemony.

And just for reference for everyone concerned, I knew all those words, posted from Wikipedia, but have included them for those who do not know what they means, because occasionally we have people who do not know law, history, or military, and while I know all of those, not all do.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]