Was the House Sit-In Felonious?

a reply to: Ahabstar

I like your point... Makes sense.

I bet they like this part of the Constitution, right?

But as I think you're alluding, if they use that, they shouldn't be trying to "infringe" on OUR rights, ESPECIALLY the one that specifically says, "shall not be infringed."

Still, good point.

a reply to: intrptr

Exactly. Crying in one of the safest spots in the world about the horrors of big scary guns while being protected from anyone standing up to them by people holding scary guns.

Babies crying in wet diapers is also a good analogy.

a reply to: intrptr

...and that's why some people call(ed) it a publicity stunt.

was obstructing the economy for 8 years treason ?

a reply to: syrinx high priest

I might be inclined to (dis)agree... Gotta be a little more specific, but it might be a better point for a different thread.

a reply to: japhrimu

Technically, the sit-in COULD be felonious, right?

Technically YES.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and

www.fbi.gov...

BUT congress doesn't have to play by their own rules.

a reply to: japhrimu

The session was over. Paul Ryan cut the microphones. They were there but nothing was going on. When Ryan came back it was to say see ya in two weeks. They never impeded or interrupted any house functions.

Oh and for the record I bet a lot of impediment and interruptions take place in that chamber.

a reply to: JinMI

No business was taking place. The session was over.

a reply to: neo96

Well I know I had to change the channel when they all started singing a hymn but I wouldn't call it terrorism.
More like karaoke night at the house...

a reply to: Sillyolme

I'm pretty sure they were gonna vote for/discuss funding research for the Zika virus... I think I also heard there was gonna be some testimony from someone about the Pulse shootings...

I can agree there is a lot of stuff like impeding or disruption going on in the chamber, but I wanted to talk about the sit-in... Ahabstar had a good point that the constitution protects the lawmakers in this kind of scenario.

For the record, I wouldn't call it terrorism, either... I think that term is actually overused and/or abused too much, as well as contrastly, conveniently avoided in other seemingly similar instances... but I digress.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Umm, what?

www.usnews.com...

Ryan could have fined each one as per rules of conduct in the house. But he did not envoke any so nothing will come of this

Probably not...
But I remember there was once a time when democrats would do a sit-it to fight for peoples civil rights and liberties.
Not take them away...

a reply to: JinMI

They were in and out yes but for the most part out. C-span was off the microphones were off.
I was watching for a long time. They were in recess. Then speaker Ryan came back in and then left again. It went on over 24 hours after all. Anyway not to take away from your thread I just offered that.

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: syrinx high priest

I might be inclined to (dis)agree... Gotta be a little more specific, but it might be a better point for a different thread.

the republicans voted against bills they normally supported or flat out didn't allow a vote. this is common knowledge

I would hope we would care more about that as a nation