Economic Treason: The definition of "treason" and could Republicans be guilty of this crime (Part 2)

[Samantha]

On May 14, 2011, I wrote a thread here at DU entitled the same as this thread. Here is a link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1104652

We have had several discussions recently on this subject, and I decided to go back and review the contents of my thread and the replies I received. This was prompted by a discussion on another thread in which 2naSalit and I became very interested in the subject, although the thread in which we were participating was of a different nature. So we decided to jointly start a thread on this specific question rather than hijack that discussion. This is that thread.

I hope if you are reading this, you will take a minute out and look at the contents of the linked thread and read some of the responses. Even today, I find the arguments initiated by some of the posters in response to my question very informative and interesting. I think you will too.

For those of you too busy to check out the link, here are a few paragraphs:

"Why is not the threat to make the U.S. government default on its debt the equivalent of economic treason? Every time one of the Republicans steps out and threatens to vote no on raising the debt ceiling, is he or she not giving aid and comfort to our enemies?

If a terrorist group boasts it will destroy the U.S. Government by breaking it economically, as the late Osama bin Laden himself repeatedly said he would do, is an American citizen threatening to cast a vote which will prevent the lifting of the current debt ceiling not giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

Keep in mind it is the Republicans themselves who boast that the late Ronald Reagan took down the Soviet Union simply by destroying its economy. By doing so, they imply this technique is an effective but non-violent approach to destroying one's political enemy.

When the Republicans started threatening to do this initially, I froze up with fear to think of the ensuing collapse. Of course, soon thereafter, I realized that was their purpose in making this threat: instill political paralysis through threatening to collapse our economy until they get what they want.

Of course, in order for a charge of treason to be made, we must be in a time of war. As we know, a formal declaration of war has not been declared by Congress. Still, with the recent "elimination" of Osama bin Laden, the use of extreme conduct by our military as so ordered by our Commander-in-Chief came with the explanation of that conduct being justified as acceptable in times of war. It would be awkward at best to make a legal case excusing a person charged with treason by a technicality that war has not been declared when arms of our government publicly speak in terms that we are.

I took my question a step further by looking up the term to find the precise definition. Here is a link to a full explanation. It is easy to see how a legal case could be argued either way under this definition, but please read it for yourself and let me know your reaction."

and here is a sampling of the diverse responses:

Poster #2: Are some of our trade agreements treason? They certainly have weakened our manufacturing capacity and therefore, our ability to be independent and self-sufficient as a nation.

Poster #30: Yes, if they deliberately default on the debt to punish the nation for political purposes.

Poster #32: As far as I'm concerned treason can only constitutionally be defined as giving actual aide to an enemy that the United States has declared war.

It's why the Rosenbergs were charged formally with treason, but "conspiracy to commit espionage." Same reason why Jonathan Pollard wasn't charged with treason.

Given the way this word has been thrown around loosely to target progressive activist, much to the detriment of our democracy, I'm not comfortable to doing the same thing even with people I think are horrible human beings. I'm for a very narrowly and strictly defined definition of treason.

This does not fall within in it."

Please note: the discussion on treaties alone is very interesting.

But another question that arose last night concerned whether or not the citizens of this Country could initiate a class action civil suit against the Tea Party minority determined to shut down our government. This question was prompted by the fact they cannot be impeached because the House has a Republican majority and the DOJ would probably never initiate any investigation because the hue and cry that would arise by the Republicans would accuse President Obama and his Attorney General of using the power of their offices to retaliate against their political opponents.

So if you have any thoughts you would like to contribute to issues in this thread, please share your thoughts. The question I raised with 2naSalit last evening was could the Tea Party Republicans be sued for malfeasance in office:

“ Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do. ”
—Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).

"The court then went on to use yet another definition, "malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3765139

In summary, I have the feeling that if our politicians cannot remedy this type of behavior soon, the citizens of the Country need to step up to the plate and hit back at those who think shutting down our government is acceptable. Many, many people are going to be hurt by this. I think many of you will say that the way to hit back is at the polls, but that might be too late.

So the question is what can we as citizens do?

Thanks for reading.

Sam

[landolfi]

1. Thanks for the thoughtful analysis

I have no expertise to offer, but if any action is decided upon, count me in. I believe also that hitting back at the polls might be too late. These people should not be allowed to get away with this, and it will continue for as long as it goes unchecked.

[Samantha]

2. Thank you for your response

I am very concerned about this, and I think it just might be a lot more serious than the media is portraying. I did not have many agreeing with me when I asked this question originally a couple of years ago, but I really took notice at the threads that appeared recently asking the equivalent of that same question. It seems more have come around to give this question very serious thought.

I just eliminated the options such as recall by the citizens in the states represented by these Tea Party representatives and impeachment, and the only thing left I could think of was a civil suit that might threaten the participants of the take down. If there is any legal avenue concerned citizens could take, we would have to enlist the assistance of some entity like the ACLU. So this is why I ask for opinions or ideas. I don't think we should sit on our hands.

If you can think of any other options, please post them.

Sam

[2naSalit]

5. Thank you for commenting

We need to get more people involved here, thus the idea of a class action suit. This is serious and we are all in a vulnerable situation if we don't act and soon.

[2naSalit]

3. Thank you for

this eloquent and well structured presentation!

I do think that a charge of malfeasance is appropriate but I can't help but think there are additional legal terms that would help frame the argument.

Last night I heard a Congressional entity call them "insurrectionists" and I thought that was an interesting term. So I looked up the Insurrection Act and found that it could, in part, be applicable but entails the use of the military on US soil during a natural disaster, public unrest or something similar by decree of the President. After some consideration I thought that would also be problematic.

I looked up the parameters within which the president could declare a national emergency and found that we are already in a declared national emergency that has been carried over since the previous administration. In the pile of text which I read about that it appears that such a declaration (they must be specific in identification of the national threat so there can be several simultaneous declarations in effect at one time) could be implemented by the President should the Tea Party faction also hold the debt ceiling issue hostage as well since they would be bringing intentional harm to the well being of the nation... in this case it would be economically, which is a valid condition for such a declaration.

A national emergency is an interesting condition to impose (many were really unhappy when GWB attempted to impose one after 9/11 but did not actually declare it in his language at the time, he eluded to one but never formally declared one and we all sort of pretended that he had) but probably the least difficult condition to implement.

Given that the TPs have in fact declared on recorded media that they had intended to shut down the government since before the 2010 election and to present time, they are guilty of collusion with intent to do harm to the economic well being of the nation as well as committing malfeasance by intending to do so while taking an oath of office whereby they swore to protect the Constitution of the government they have intended to destroy all along.

These are serious charges and I, for one, am tired of these individuals holding office and being funded not only the taxpayers whom the intend to harm but also benefactors who have purchased their seats in office for the specific purpose of harming the nation, its people and their government via insurrectionist maneuvers and doing so with impunity. This must end and immediately.

We the People are entitled to immediate recourse through legal means in order to preserve our government, our economic well being and the well being of this nation as a whole. These individuals should be removed from office and banished from holding office in any capacity for life.

I invite any legal professionals and academics to help us figure out which is the proper procedure for citizens to take action against the domestic enemies within our government. As Sam has mentioned above, waiting for recourse at the ballot station may be too late.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/10/letter-continuation-national-emergency-message

[Samantha]

7. Totally fascinating

Thank you for the time you must have spent in researching and writing this excellent post.

I too heard the word "insurrectionist" used I think yesterday, and I thought it was precisely the appropriate word. That is what these people are.

But here is the paragraph that you wrote I love the most:

"Given that the TPs have in fact declared on recorded media that they had intended to shut down the government since before the 2010 election and to present time, they are guilty of collusion with intent to do harm to the economic well being of the nation as well as committing malfeasance by intending to do so while taking an oath of office whereby they swore to protect the Constitution of the government they have intended to destroy all along."

I am sure you read the blurb I wrote in our original thread focused on malfeasance. I think the standout word in the legal quote is "malice." I do not think there is any doubt these Tea Party representatives are acting out of malice. Some of it centers around the race of our President and their prejudice against him. Some of it rotates around their resentment at having lost the election and thus the power a win would have given them in our Nation's capital. But a lot of it is inspired by pure, raw greed. Implementation of their will on our government policies would result in so much revenue to their sponsors, I cannot begin to calculate it.

And so they act with malice to take down our government, and in so doing, commit an act or acts deleterious to our survival as a democracy and our ability to survive with a functioning, economically healthy government. When a terrorist like the late bin Laden takes down the World Trade Center, we follow him to the ends of the earth to retaliate. When a Tea Party representative attacks our government's financial well-being and threatens the survival of our recovering economy, we should not simply excuse that behavior because he or she is a citizen elected to our Congress. We should legally hold him or her accountable.

Sam

[2naSalit]

10. I agree that "malice"

is a fitting descriptive term in this instance. It is intentional and they have said so themselves on recorded media after all. They campaigned on this intention and basically because they are incensed that someone of color has been elected, twice, and actually brought to law policies that benefit the common-folk after being battered by corporate thugs and drug through two wars they objected to (well, one for certain).

I was reading a number of the comments within the previous OP from a couple years ago, very interesting indeed. It's so refreshing to see thoughtful discussion without all the character attacks we see of late.

One of the comments that really caught my attention ended with this:

In a larger sense, the GOP is committing treason and terrorism. But they are doing it at the behest of the corporations that have been committing it both here and around the world for years. And they are not going to allow their lackeys to be punished, unless they see some serious opposition, that will cost them.

As a verbal weapon, calling the GOP traitors can't be just about the budget and its partner the debt ceiling. You have to go after the entire cabal. Henry Wallace defined fascism and how it would come about in the USA. We are dealing with fascists, plain and simple. They don't take no for an answer. Here is what they did, how they did it, as predicted years ago:

http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm

This is what we are dealing with. And we don't know what to do. We are no longer permitted in political dialogue to even call them what they clearly are, as Wallace defined it. Our Founding Fathers and Abe Lincoln warned us.

As a rallying cry, call them traitors. But widen the definition of who they are. Legally, they aren't, because they are operating above our government, IMHO.

And was in response to a comment you had made about this OP's subject of focus. It is still true now and much more obvious. There has to be some method of recourse for citizens to take when a faction conspires to do harm to the government from within... but I suspect it's buried in one of Jefferson's Federalist Papers and I don't know which one at the moment. That might take a few days to ferret out along with cross referencing in the Constitution and subsequent ConLaw.

Apparently we will ultimately have to find a way to cost them in such a way that we can overcome and reverse the damage done by their faction, especially if we can't litigate their demise in power.

Something for me to do tomorrow since I can't be hired for work in the public sector until this storm blows over, there's certainly no work to be had in the tourist town near the NP I live next to while it's closed down. It will be like reviewing some of my college courses!

[2naSalit]

4. And for actual evidence...

please view this piece presented by Rachel Maddow on 9/30 which has numerous instances on recorded media indicating the intent of these individuals to shut down the government...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#53151808

and EarlG posted this lovely collage the other day too with quotes (though there are no dates included as to when these words were spoken)

[pinboy3niner]

6. You can't criminalize legislators' actions in proposing or voting on a bill

You may criticize a legislator's actions, even find them reprehensible. But however good or bad their choices are, they are part of their legislative and Constitutional duty. The remedy for bad legislative actions under the Constitution is in judicial review.

Attempting to criminalize the opposition is an abuse of power. It is political repression. And supporting that principle means that any party in power can do the same thing to its opposition based on its opinion about what constitutes actions that it considers harmful to the country. That is discriminatory, punitive, arbitrary, and capricious and no court would uphold that.

The framers were very careful to define treason because they were aware of the potential for partisan abuse of the law.

[Samantha]

9. And here is the definition which I quoted in my original thread

"http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason

"The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

"The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.

"Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given." (emphasis added.)

I think what you post is accurate. However, are you going to go so far as to say shutting down the United Government does not give aid and comfort to our enemies? This is a sincere question.

Today, an official from the government stepped out (sorry, I do not know his name but the clip was on MSNBC) and said the inability of our Government to function in a manner in which it should be functioning due to the layoffs of personnel normally employed in the pursuit of detecting possible terrorist attacks is (paraphrasing) the equivalent of a dream come true to those that seek to attack us.

Is that not giving aid to our enemies?

And of course you know they documented their intentions while campaigning for office.

I am thinking you are going to come back with the intent argument, right?

Sam

[2naSalit]

12. I think the comments were made by

the head of the NSA, a Mr. Clapper. Despicable as he may be, he is the head of that agency and I think it was he who made that comment earlier today in a Congressional hearing of some sort.

Looking for reference...

[Samantha]

18. I thought the individual I heard speak was referencing the NSA

But I believe he walked up to a microphone and spoke those words. He might have been leaving a hearing, I am not sure.

Sam

[2naSalit]

24. The only thing I could find

was the actual C-SPAN recording of the whole hearing and that is over 3 hrs long, couldn't watch all of that right now. I know I heard it on NPR and BBC today and I thought they said it was Clapper but I can't be so sure of that.

While I was hunting for a short version I did stumble on this:

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19188-congressional-republicans-violate-their-oath-of-office

and find it interesting how many people are thinking along these same lines. Maybe someone was looking at our conversation yesterday or maybe they thought of it, as we did, after watching what the folks at MSNBC has presented..?

[Samantha]

25. I liked the words "betraying America" because that is exactly what they are doing

I am under the impression people on truth-out do post on DU and vice versa. I wrote that original thread about two years ago, and I believe only one person point-blank agreed with me. It has not been until recently that several people at DU have come out and suggested what I said - by that I mean questioning if the right-wingers are not the equivalent of economic terrorists. That is why I think many of us are converging at a point where we are all thinking very similar thoughts about them and their actions.

We have allowed this to go on too long and it has done too much harm.

Sam

[pinboy3niner]

15. I have no doubt that you are sincere

But equating legislative action to giving aid and comfort to our enemies is merely an opinion and doesn't meet the legal requirements of the law.

My point is that what legislators do in their chambers is fulfilling their Constitutional responsibilities and cannot be criminalized. A legislator may make a "bad" vote or author a "bad" bill, but that is not a crime.

Even if a legislator were to submit a bill honoring Al Queda, applauding their actions on 9/11, and encouraging them to continue their work, that would not be a criminal offense.

Remember, too, that if we as Democrats try to criminalize the opposition, that principle also justifies the opposition, when they are in power, criminalizing US.

[2naSalit]

17. What we are

trying to establish is whether we, as the citizens, could take legal action, not as affiliates to party but as citizens for whom they seem to be intending harm for the benefit of their benefactors and likely themselves personally.

[Samantha]

23. Exactly (n/t)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. Of course you grant this same right for those that disagree with Dem policies, right?

Or is this one of those self-selecting segregated-by-ideology rights?

[Samantha]

54. Of course she would!

If Dems were to possibly commit a civil tort that possibly jeopardized the survival of a still-struggling-to-recover economy, and if continued, the world economy, we would deserve judicial scrutiny as to our motivation. (I took the liberty of answering for her because we started this thread jointly; I believe she is currently tied up in the woods and cannot respond personally)....

Thank you for posting on our thread.

Sam

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. "I believe she is currently tied up in the woods"

I call that "date night."

The problem with this scheme is that it invites/incentivizes "lawfare." It doesn't matter that we think our policies are best, a complainant need only file suit -- again and again and again until they find a sympathetic judge/jury. In the end that would lead to more legislative paralysis than anything endured to date.

Imagine the case that could have been made against Dems speaking against the Iraq war while troops were under fire? Lincoln arrested reporters and deported a congressman over things he (unilaterally) deemed subversive to the war effort. Let's not invite the return to such things.

[Samantha]

20. So in your opinion we citizens should sit quietly in the bleachers and say nothing but hope

for the best?

I think the statements you make apply to normal political circumstances. I do not think what we see today are at all normal. They are extraordinary. Even John McCain said he had never seen anything like it.

I am not saying the legislative action is giving aid and comfort to our enemies; I am saying the collusion among participating Republicans to shut down the government does give aid and comfort to our enemies. If you would like to take exception to my use of the word "collusion", I would like to ask do you think all of the campaign promises made by these Tea Partiers in 2010 to shut down the government happened by coincidence? I think the voting, or legislative action as you term it, was just a tool to do so.

And I do not mind saying if we Democrats pulled something like this, I hope the Republicans would hold us responsible in whatever manner would be appropriate.

Sam

[pinboy3niner]

22. Of course we don't sit quietly, we aggressively OPPOSE them

But we do that in ways that are Constitutional, as our President and Senate Majority Leader are doing.

The collusion to which you refer is simply the strategizing that all political parties and factions engage in. You can meet in the dark, behind closed doors, and plan a legislative strategy in secret--and it's all protected by our Constitution (God Bless it!).

[Nye Bevan]

8. While it is arguable that what the Repubs are doing is "equivalent" to treason,

it is utter nonsense to suggest that there is any possible legal case to be made for this. In the United States we do not arrest legislators based upon which way they vote on a bill. The remedy is at the ballot box when they run for re-election.

[Samantha]

11. I am not suggesting they could be arrested for the way they vote on a bill

I am suggesting the Tea Party candidates might have colluded to take down the U.S. Government, probably along with other Republicans or Republican sponsors. It certainly looks that way.

Sam

[2naSalit]

13. and that is

precisely the same suggestion that I am making.

Edit: Oops, I was intending for this to be in response to Nye Bevan's comment, sorry.

[Samantha]

21. Well, wait a minute

We are co-authoring this thread together, so I am thinking it's better for you to agree with my post than Nye Bevan's!!!

Sam

[onenote]

49. Even if it is "collusion" its simply not illegal.

And it wouldn't look that way to any court in this country.

Legislators get to vote. They get to discuss and coordinate their votes. Look back at past battles on the debt ceiling. The last vote to raise the debt ceiling passed the House by a 285-144 margin. The 144 votes against this particular bill to raise the debt ceiling included 111 Democrats. Those Democrats weren't opposed to raising the debt ceiling, they were opposed to the specific terms under which the debt ceiling was being increased. And it was every bit their right to vote the way they did, even if it had meant that the debt ceiling increase was voted down in that incarnation.

What the repubs doing is irresponsible, unreasonable, and every other negative thing you can think of, except for one: its not unlawful. There is no evidence that the repubs would vote to shutter the government or prevent a debt ceiling increase if the terms on which it was done met their demands. Indeed, they all voted to keep the government funded, but on terms that were not acceptable to the administration and to the Senate. The Administration and the Senate were right to say "no way" to the repubs proposals, but that doesn't make it illegal for the repubs to make their demands. Recall 17 years ago when the government last had a major shutdown. That shutdown occurred in two stages, and the first stage occurred after Bill Clinton (correctly in my view) vetoed the continuing resolution that had been sent to him by Congress as well as a debt ceiling bill. One could hardly accuse either those in Congress who had voted to keep the government funded (but on terms unacceptable to the President and enough members of Congress to sustain his veto) or the President and those who would sustain his vetoes of having committed some act of treason or an act of malfeasance or some other action that would support legal action. It just doesn't work that way. These fights are political. They're ugly. But they're not the basis for any legal action.

[Samantha]

53. This is a very thoughtful post

I remember the shutdown in the 90s very distinctly. I would like to say, however, those times are not these days.

I am not disputing any legislator's right to vote or to coordinate a strategy.

I do think what is happening today is beyond political. Some of the participants, legislators along with those who donate to their campaigns, are so extremely to the right they fight to re-make this Country into something other than a democratic society. I am sure from the news that has been reported you can think of many examples of this.

What I am looking for is a legitimate (read legal) way to interfere. I do think it is possible to make a case that one cannot find "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" while facing each new day without food to eat or a home to call his or her own. It is also kind of difficult if one cannot access affordable health care. And I will not pretend to know how a parent must feel to learn his or her child cannot access cancer treatments due to the financial crisis created, yes deliberately created, by a partisan political player or players. I can't imagine it, I can't imagine it.

So if the only legitimate way to fight back is to find another venue in which rests a stop-gap to the extremists, we all need to be looking for it, I would think.

The closest I have come is to present the risk to our national security and a civil tort which is so weak, I did not post it. But take a look at the national security angle:

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/325829-spy-agencies-warn-shutdown-will-hurt-national-security

"According to the Defense Department's shutdown plan, intelligence and surveillance activities necessary for national security are excepted from the shutdown. But the document notes that "general political and economic intelligence unrelated to ongoing or contingency military operations" are not excepted.

Clapper and NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander will testify about their controversial surveillance programs at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) warned on Tuesday that the furloughs will "cripple" the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence offices.

"Our shutdown is the biggest gift we could possibly give our enemies," she said in a speech on the Senate floor."
(emphasis added).

You are obviously very intelligent. Perhaps you could give some thought to legitimate ways citizens can fight back rather than sit on the sidelines and watch its economy crumble and its Constitutionally-guaranteed rights evaporate.

Thank you for posting on our thread.

Sam

[2naSalit]

14. Another factor in this

set of considerations is that we are dealing with the agents/foot soldiers of fascists.

Here's a really good essay by Henry A. Wallace that I found among comments in the older thread that should serve as a primer for those not sure of what we are dealing with in this situation:

http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm

Well worth the read.

In times like these, we who are concerned for the longevity of our nation, need to read a lot and work together to understand and to take action as is prescribed in the Constitution for the issues at hand. It also will take a lot of serious discussion (not bickering, thank you) so that we all understand what is at hand and how to make a difference.

[Samantha]

16. I looked back and found the reference to that article

It was published in The New York Times in 1944. A lot of what the author states is riveting, but I chose one paragraph to post here:

"Democracy to crush fascism internally must demonstrate its capacity to "make the trains run on time." It must develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels. As long as scientific research and inventive ingenuity outran our ability to devise social mechanisms to raise the living standards of the people, we may expect the liberal potential of the United States to increase. If this liberal potential is properly channeled, we may expect the area of freedom of the United States to increase. The problem is to spend up our rate of social invention in the service of the welfare of all the people." (from the link you cite)

Like you, I am not into bickering. I am just really into asking questions and brainstorming on problem-solving. I am also not going to call the Tea Party representatives fascists but they are definitely insurrectionists!!!

I don't think what we have now is conducive to waiting until we next vote. I am hoping the President along with sane members of Congress can find an acceptable solution to this problem, but if that does not happen, I am very interested in knowing what the citizens can legally do to hold those accountable who have caused the problem.

Sam

[2naSalit]

19. An important point at another thread

suggests that these individuals are at war with the government and citizens and taking war-like actions against us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251327485

Interesting take, I think.

[Tumbulu]

26. I see this as the beginning of the second chapter of the civil war

They want this nation to fold. They are clear and vocal about this. I view their actions as treasonous in light of their declaration of war against the federal government.

Just my take on it. I am more worried, than I thought I would be, though.

[2naSalit]

28. I would appear taht they

have outed themselves and they are not hiding it at all.

As Samantha said somewhere on this thread, after my mention of fascism, that she wouldn't go so far as to label them as such but I would go so far as to say that they are surely the foot soldiers of the ones that are funding their places on the ballot.

I'm as riveted as I was when WJC was impeached... don't know what else to say, can't sleep much and have little interest in much else other than researching what can be done if the folks in DC can't come to some resolve and soon.

[Tumbulu]

30. Like you, I fear that this is far more serious than

Most people think- except the tea people. They are energized and thrilled. And it could happen, this dismantling of the Union. I worry that they will pull it off this time.

I can tell you, there would be no way that young people would rise up and fight against each other in the country simply to save it from unraveling into country/states.

I do hope that I am wrong and that I am overreacting....but this feels very heavy and serious to me.

[Samantha]

29. It very well could be

I don't think they want the nation to fold; they want to make it over in their own images. They cannot do this and adhere to our Constitution, so they pay politicians to do their dirty work and the corrupt ones are happy to have the donations. And that is why, I believe, if one truly believes in the Constitution and the principles upon which it was founded, it is no longer wise to "sit in the bleachers" and say or do nothing. But, just to be clear, actions and words must be within our legal boundaries -- we just have to be smarter, quicker and more energetic than they are. And we must be constant.

I think you are right to be worried. Being worried is better than being asleep and waking up later only to find it is too late to do anything.

Thank you for posting on our thread.

Sam

[Tumbulu]

31. Thank you for starting it- it is full of thought provoking

writing. What I used I come to DU for, but have not seen in some time. Refreshing in this time of upset.

[Samantha]

34. Thank you for posting on our thread

Hopefully, some will have some ideas about what we can do as citizens to step up to the plate and help oppose this faction.

Sam

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. Yeah, and when we were fighting WW2 the Japanese printed all sorts of unflattering

comments about FDR, and the Soviets during the Cold War said mean things about the US. Ergo anyone saying mean or unflattering things about the US and its President are no better than the commies and Axis powers.

ROUND 'EM UP!

[Tumbulu]

27. Excellent post!

Thank you for it, I will read and re read.

[freshwest]

32. Excellent thread, will return to this and the link post tomorrow.

[Cha]

33. K&R thanks Sam!

[G_j]

35. Doesn't the PATRIOT Act say something

about deliberately damaging the US economy?

[2naSalit]

36. Hmmm

That requires review! I have read the Insurrection Act and the conditions under which a president can declare a national emergency but I hadn't considered the PATRIOT Act in all of this. Something else to read on this snowy day...

Thanks for bringing that up.

[G_j]

37. there is also the issue of national security,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023769535

[2naSalit]

38. That's also a good point

We were trying to get that citation last night but it was getting late so...

Currently I am on Title III of the PA which deals with money laundering which does include pay-offs to politicians for the purpose of bringing harm to the country... but I'm still reading that part and don't have a clear argument in that context yet. I'll be back with a summery shortly.

[G_j]

39. thanks for your efforts! nt

[Samantha]

44. Oops, responded above before I saw this

This is getting interesting.

Today I see the Republicans are trying to change the subject. They are getting too much adverse heat and cannot win the debate. I think we should stay on it and not be swayed to start talking about bringing up the Grand Bargain again, which they mentioned, because that is just a diversionary tactic.

Sam

[Samantha]

43. I thought it was an excellent question and planned to see what I could find as well

I do not know the answer but am interested in seeing what surfaces to the top.

These are the kinds of ideas that are great to see posted here, and kudos to the poster who asked. If we found a specific passage, perhaps we could send it to someone like Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow, either one of which I think would be prone to bring it up.

I am going to see what I can find today.

Sam

[2naSalit]

42. So in the PATRIOT Act, as per Wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#Title_I:_Enhancing_domestic_security_against_terrorism

Title VIII: Terrorism criminal law
Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title VIII

Title VIII alters the definitions of terrorism, and establishes or re-defines rules with which to deal with it. It redefined the term "domestic terrorism" to broadly include mass destruction as well as assassination or kidnapping as a terrorist activity. The definition also encompasses activities that are "dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" and are intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," or are undertaken "to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping" while in the jurisdiction of the United States.[136] Terrorism is also included in the definition of racketeering.[137] Terms relating to cyber-terrorism are also redefined, including the term "protected computer," "damage," "conviction," "person," and "loss."[138]

(emphasis added)

SNIP...

This is a summery, of course, but it does put a bunch of legalese in easier to grasp language. Most other portions deal with foreign entities and how little privacy we now have but the Title VIII portion above does partially address the concerns being discussed here.

[2naSalit]

45. Kudos to

the author of this OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023775805

[Tumbulu]

46. Yes, very good

I keep waiting for action to stop this......

[2naSalit]

48. That requires

some organization.

That needs to get rolling now too.

We need someone with those skills to help... don't know if I have enough popularity to draw enough interest, sad but that seems to be what it takes. People are so wrapped up in the personal friendliness preferences that they will bypass getting important business tended to for the good of all based on that sense of personality preference.

[2naSalit]

47. Thanks to another diligent

and inquiring poster on DU there is also this legal tidbit to consider...

18 USC § 872 - Extortion by officers or employees of the United States

Current through Pub. L. 113-36. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/872

Penalty not hefty enough, though.

Definition of Extortion:

Extortion

Forcing action or obtaining something by illegal means. Anyone may commit extortion through force or coercion. A public or private official may also commit extortion under the color of office.
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
The crime of obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right (such as pretending to be an IRS agent). A direct threat to harm the victim is usually treated as the crime of robbery, however. Extortion is a felony in all states. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing and damaging information to family, friends, or the public.

Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/extortion

[DragonBorn]

50. Are you being serious?

You clearly spent a lot of time researching and writing this but do you seriously want to criminalize political action by an opposing political party and political group? You know what type of people would support that? Fascists and authoritarians. Vote with me or be imprisoned.

Their actions while disagreeable do not rise to illegal conduct. It does not give aid or comfort to our enemy, you are deliberately stretching that definition until it is unrecognizable. I'm not going to even both addressing why this is such a mess instead lets play devils advocate.

::dons hat with horns::

Gun Control, is that treasonous action against the U.S. Constitution?

Well the 2nd says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Oh I'm sure some Republicans would love to declare the Brady Group a terrorist organization, and all democratic legislators who voted for gun control measure to be tried for treason. Do you see the door you open when you try to criminalize valid political action? It would become a mess and if you think our country is already fractured just see what happens if crap like this ever comes to pass. It really will be us vs them. A country divided cannot stand.

What about the counter argument that by raising the debt ceiling while simultaneously refusing to cut government spending is leading us into a black hole of debt that we will be unable to recover from. That republicans are trying save the country from an even worse collapse! This actually bothers me the most because I belive the first part. If we dont cut our spending (Which no one seems to want to do) it will cause the destruction of our country.

::removes hat::

What to know what my responce would be to this situation? VOTE THEM ALL OUT! If we cannot muster enough of our own to just go to the voting booth once every couple of years then its our own damn fault. We should not be criminalizing another parties political action because we disagree with them or couldn't win at the voting booth.

I mean hell, Bush lied us into a war and him and his entire cabinet are free and clear. How about we prosecute some actual criminal actions that have taken place at the highest office in our country rather then start making some up.

[Samantha]

51. Welcome to Ignore (n/t)

[oldhippie]

52. Wow! Just Wow!

You ask for comments and discussion, and you get a very civil, reasoned response, and you put him on ignore?

OK, I guess I see exactly where you are coming from, and it truly scares me. I don't want you on my side. Put me on ignore also, and I'll do likewise.

[2naSalit]

56. Another thread that has some good info

This came out Sat. evening and succinctly compresses a lot of what we have compiled here. The suggested remedy or starting point for remedy is the ethics committee... but that involves the House. Might be the only avenue available at this time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017149959

[napkinz]

57. Treason Party Graphic ...

[Samantha]

59. Thank you so much for posting this - it is so appropriate

While most of the sane of us are really troubled by the current shut-down and the impending issue of raising the debt-ceiling, I have been thinking there are probably a lot of really wealthy people who would celebrate our economy taking a tumble. Those radicals who think they can reform the government in the image they want to see would seize on the opportunity. They really don't care what happens to the middle class or the impoverished....

Sam

[B Calm]

58. Well thought out post! K&R

[Samantha]

60. Thank you - I am really glad you liked it

Maybe a few more people will have the chance to read it since it is back up on the weekend.

Sam

[dairydog91]

61. This borders on legal quackery.

Congressional members have extensive immunity under Article One, Section 6. Yes, they can do stuff that would be a crime anywhere else if they do it while they are legislating (See, for example, Mike Gravel entering reams of classified information into the Congressional Record).

Legislators aren't immune against charges of Treason, but that is a technical term under the Constitution. Specifically, it is "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". Those are used way, WAY more narrowly than you seem to think they are. Levying war is levying war; it's not going to apply until John Boehner signs a formal declaration of war against the United States or starts levying a rebel army. As for "aid and comfort", about the cases you'll find where the U.S. charged someone with treason involved the actual provision of services, weapons, or supplies to a country which the U.S. was at war with. Treason is not "John Boehner is using Congress's power of the purse to extract political concessions", it is "Rand Paul provided AK-47s to al Qaeda, shanked a pilot, and flew a plane into the Federal Reserve Building". Even defaulting is not treason; it's a choice by legislators to default.

This is not a grey area; bringing a treason case against a Congressman for voting or refusing to vote is spectacularly out of sync with the precedents. The only possible reason to try to bring this as a legal case is that you hope Antonin Scalia dies of a heart attack as all 9 Justices howl with laughter at the idea of bringing treason charges against a legislator for voting in a manner which you find disagreeable. Seriously, here's the legal principle you're advancing: A President can declare that members of Congress, by supporting an economic/fiscal policy he disagrees with, are committing treason and can hence be prosecuted as traitors. If Congress can be punished in such a manner for voting, it is basically worthless as an independent entity. The concept you're advocating, in practice, is basically a populist military dictatorship.

---

the hue and cry that would arise by the Republicans would accuse President Obama and his Attorney General of using the power of their offices to retaliate against their political opponents.

Considering that is what they would doing, it would seem like it would be an accurate charge on the Republicans' part.

---

Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do

Which is why this is not malfeasance. There is no such thing as a vote that a legislator does not have the legal right to make. They might pass a law which is unconstitutional, and the courts cannot enforce, but that doesn't mean that it is illegal for the legislature to vote that way. The legislature can vote to turn Wednesday into "Holocaust Appreciation Day", or vote to load the entire Social Security trust fund into a rocket and shoot it into the sun, or vote to create the Department of Twerking. By definition, the legislature makes the laws. The Constitution is the only bounds on Congressional power, and it does not obligate Congress to vote to borrow money.