I don't know who'd enforce it...

[Septua]

..or even if it's enforceable.

[link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384|

[Karadeniz]

1. A court would enforce it.

[TexasProgresive]

2. I'd have to donate $3.00 to read that

[StarfishSaver]

3. It's enforceable, but not applicable to this situation

Since the sedition statute requires the use of force, which has not occurred.

[2naSalit]

4. Well, when the beastlybois show up with their guns...

That could count for such.

[EndlessWire]

5. That's debatable.

The law distinguishes between force and violence. They are not one and the same.

[StarfishSaver]

8. No, it's not debatable. It's very clear

The statute makes no distinction between force and violence. Seditious conspiracy requires the use of force.

But think what you want. I'm not in the mood to argue the law with non-lawyers.

[EndlessWire]

9. I can read.

And your arrogant attitude is out of line.

[StarfishSaver]

10. Where does the statute distinguish between "force" and "violence" and where does kt

indicate that force is not a required element of the crime it defines?

[EndlessWire]

11. Yes, I will think what I want.

Last edited Fri Jan 1, 2021, 09:48 PM - Edit history (1)

"But think what you want. I'm not in the mood to argue the law with non-lawyers."

Then, why don't you go to a law forum where you can argue with those you deem worthy? Apparently, you are in the mood, but you have chosen a forum where people are just talking to one another without an agenda or ego.

Title 18, Chapter 115, Section 2384 deals with primarily the CONSPIRACY to commit sedition. It defines "two or more" as a conspiracy. "Seditious" is a descriptive for the word "Conspiracy." Sedition was previously defined as "the federal crime of advocating insurrection against the government through speeches and publications."

The word OR is a conjunction connecting a list of examples. Thus you have "...conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States..." In other words, ...conspire to overthrow OR put down OR to destroy by force...

Further, you have equated the word "force" with "violence." If you did not, you wouldn't have this ridiculous argument that the statute stands for violence, and the argument that the proposed actions are not within this statute. Trip on next door to Section 2385 where Title 18 clearly distinguishes between "force" and "violence." OR means you get to pick one OR the other.

There are five types of force; do your homework and look them up.

The Sedition Act has been discredited as being unconstitutional and contrary to the First Amendment. However, Section 2385, Advocating Overthrow of Government, is still a crime, which certain Senators have advertised they will commit. This action may or may not fall under correct procedure, but pressuring Pence to deny the correct vote would be a crime punishable under Title 18.

I can't devote any more time to your argument. Spend some time reading all the Sections together, look up the cases, amendments to the sections, and the notes. You'll get, at the very least, a correct assessment of the word OR.

Have a nice day.

[csziggy]

6. It does not necessarily need force

From the link in the OP:

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

From the Wikipedia article about this:

For a seditious conspiracy charge to be effected, a crime need only be planned, it need not be actually attempted. According to Andres Torres and Jose E. Velazquez, the accusation of seditious conspiracy is of political nature and was used almost exclusively against Puerto Rican independentistas in the twentieth century.[1] However, the act was also used in the twentieth century against communists, (United Freedom Front)[2], neo-Nazis[3], and terrorists such as the Provisional IRA in Massachusetts and Omar Abdel-Rahman.[4]

Notable cases

In 1936, Pedro Albizu Campos, a Puerto Rican Nationalist, and nine others were charged with forcibly attempting to overthrow the Government of the United States in Puerto Rico and were jailed for 10 years in Atlanta, Georgia.
In 1980, Puerto Rican Nationalist Carmen Valentín Pérez and nine other women and men were charged with seditious conspiracy for attempting to overthrow the government of the United States in Puerto Rico, and were each given sentences of up to 90 years in prison.[6]
Fort Smith sedition trial - Ten white supremacists were indicted for seditious conspiracy in 1987 for crimes in related to The Order and The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. All ten defendants and four other defendants indicted for different crimes were acquitted in April 1988 after a two-month trial.
On 1 October 1995, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, a prominent Muslim cleric, and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy.[7] They had been accused of terrorist plots in New York City.
On 29 March 2010, nine members of Hutaree were charged with seditious conspiracy.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_conspiracy

Most of the cases listed were simply for planning attacks but in which no attack happened as highlighted in the bold emphasis I added.

[StarfishSaver]

7. The statute DOES necessarily require the use of force.

The statute is what determines the elements of the crime, not Wikipedia. And the statute sets force (either actual or planned) as an essential element of the crime of seditious conspiracy.

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Unless there is proof that the parties are attempting to or conspiring to overthrow the government by force, there is no crime of sedition. And, so far, everyone who is trying to upend the election is doing so through legal means - even though they are stretching the law. They are going to court and they are using statutes and Congressional rules and procedures. As obnoxious as their efforts are, nothing they've done to date comes even close to qualifying as attempt "to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States ... or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law."

Wikipedia is not a legal source but, interestingly, even the section of Wikipedia you cited contradicts your argument: "In 1936, Pedro Albizu Campos, a Puerto Rican Nationalist, and nine others were charged with forcibly attempting to overthrow the Government of the United States in Puerto Rico.: