Skip to main content

View Diary: Prosecute The Conspirators Who Plotted The Government Shutdown In Violation Of 18 USC § 2384 (46 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You're a better lawyer than the diarist. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, wilderness voice

    But that's not the main problem, it's the lack of distinction between obstructing the implementation of a law and the refusal to pass a law.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 02:10:32 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  On the other hand "Obamacare" is the law now so (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OldDragon

      conspiracy to "prevent, hinder, or delay the execution" by force could fit. Trouble is what is going on now is "prevent, hinder, or delay the execution" by refusal to act somewhere else on something entirely different—a different hostage if you will.

      Too fucking bad we can't get them on sedition but until we catch some of the bastards plotting use of force it doesn't meet the criteria.

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

      by pelagicray on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 02:44:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  supporting the repeal of a law ain't treason. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wilderness voice
        •  And (0+ / 0-)

          The 1798 Sedition Act is not a law I'd want to rally behind
          ...

        •  Their trys were not. What they are doing now is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mookins, OldDragon

          damned close. We didn't like Iraq. We didn't and don't like the Patriot Act. Threatening to "blow up" the economy unless we get our way on those laws would not "repeal" it would be political terrorism. That is what they are doing with laws they don't like but cannot repeal.

          Though it has been said over and over it does not seem to be getting through some thick skulls that once this precedent is set any stubborn minority of a majority that can threaten that majority's control could engage in this sort of undermining any law.

          "We don't negotiate with terrorists" applies here. Can't start down that road and survive as a nation.

          The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

          by pelagicray on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 02:58:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you're confusing metaphor for reality. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, wilderness voice

            political terrorism isn't terrorism.

            note also that many liberals opposed a debt ceiling increase over Iraq; should Bush have arrested them?

            •  You don't get it? I'm saying there is no charge— (0+ / 0-)

              just a bit pissed there can't be.

              Doesn't mean I can't snarl and picture them being rendered down for patio torch fat.

              The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

              by pelagicray on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 03:08:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

                •  We are seeing some things I think the founders (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  basket, OldDragon

                  may have thought as features that have become bugs. We have had it before with the Dixiecrats a prominent example on the Democratic Party side.

                  I think it is a "parliamentary system" effect within a house of our Congress where a "majority party" is really a fragile coalition of deeply divided interests that cannot continue in the majority unless the majority of its members bow to the minority keeping them in power. We see that in Israel and no few other countries with governing coalitions of diverse parties.

                  The real down side for us is that it can have the gridlock and even really dangerous effect we are seeing now, but without the safety valve a true parliamentary system provides in "no confidence," fall of a prime minister and new elections to let the voters decide the sticking point.

                  In addition, our 18th century schedule in which two and four and six year election cycles for officials were probably pretty "rapid" are now slow in reacting to changes. That level of "stability" may now be something of a bug. Of course it would be a real curse to have to undergo even more frequent electioneering and fund raising.

                  The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

                  by pelagicray on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 03:46:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  They did not plot to repeal the law! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OldDragon

          They plotted to DESTROY the government by FORCE because they didn't LIKE the law.

          If they wanted to plot how to get elected into majorities so that they could legally overturn the law, that would be a whole different kettle of fish.

          Instead, when they lost the election, they plotted to prevent, hinder, and delay a duly enacted law, by FORCE through a government shutdown.

          They're using the government shutdown as a WEAPON in order to repeal a law they have no LEGAL means to prevent under the current makeup of Congress ... except by shutting down the entire government, which breaks the barrier of not causing "clear and present danger" to this country.

          Stop the party of Gut & Spend policies that gut our Earned Benefits programs like Social Security and Medicare and spends on tax breaks for the wealthy elite.

          by jillwklausen on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 03:18:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They did? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnny wurster, wilderness voice
            They plotted to DESTROY the government by FORCE
            I don't remember them raising an army to engage in violent action to destroy the federal government.

            Legislative action that occurs within the bounds of the law taken by a duly-elected legislature does not fall under the definition of "by force," nor does advocating for such action.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 03:22:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Good point, but here's my rebuttal. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, OldDragon

        You can, in fact, legally to conspire to block the implementation of an existing law by saying you won't do something discretionary--pass a budget, pass a higher debt ceiling--unless that existing law is moved to non-existing.  Republicans aren't asking the WH to do something illegal, after all.

        The notion that Republicans and their paymasters are doing something illegal is a harmful distraction, because it's so transparently false, from the correct and effective appeal, which is that they're doing something stupid, petty, cruel, and unpatriotic.  But those things are all legal, as they should be.

        You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

        by Rich in PA on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 02:50:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I will point out, in the interest of honesty... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster

          ...that I am pretty hard-core about the right of public officials to trade favors short of purely personal (or private third-party) gain.  I thought Rod Blagojevich was rightly acquitted of most of the charges against him and I'm not 100% convinced about the one he was convicted of.

          You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

          by Rich in PA on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 03:11:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think it is border line for the reason above. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          basket, OldDragon

          Our form of government cannot survive if the precedent is established that a stubborn minority in what is effectively a parliamentary type majority coalition can shut down the government or threaten to wreck the economy unless they can nullify established law. It would have been just as bad if our side had done this under Bush. I suspect his reaction would then have been border line legal or even crossed over into illegal actions against our side.

          Regardless of what group tries this they must not be allowed to establish it as a means of minority governing. It can be somewhat effective in a true parliamentary system as the government falls and new elections decide the matter. In our fixed term system that safety valve is not there and damage can be prolonged into disaster.

          I think we as a country, perhaps in a state by state generated move, should work toward some constitutional adjustments that would nullify these particular actions.

          For example, an amendment could create the default condition of a CR. The normal budget process can increase, reduce or even eliminate certain budget items (business as usual); however, if deadlock occurs spending continues at the previous level until the normal process works.

          The whole "debt limit" needs to be eliminated as it really is just paying the bills incurred by the normal budget actions. An amendment can make it clear and simple. If spending bills become law the cost, including debt necessary to cover them, are an obligation that shall be paid.

          I would favor carefully crafted amendments on those two problems.

          The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

          by pelagicray on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 03:26:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I concur, pelagicray. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OldDragon

            Primarily, this is just to get people's attention to the depths of the conspiratorial actions of the monied few who are driving our government into the ditch and us over the cliff right with it.

            Thanks for your thoughtful input.

            Jill

            Stop the party of Gut & Spend policies that gut our Earned Benefits programs like Social Security and Medicare and spends on tax breaks for the wealthy elite.

            by jillwklausen on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 03:31:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  its not even *close* to borderline. (0+ / 0-)

            to the.contrary, it veers on the delusional.

            •  I'm thinking "border line" as far as "legal" and (0+ / 0-)

              "constitutional" and not with regard to sanity—and I think it was an insane move for a political party to make after the examples in the Clinton years.

              Strictly speaking it is not illegal or unconstitutional. In fact, they are using what I'd term a constitutional weakness that we probably need to fix. The founders wanted the House, closest to the people, to have power of the purse. I do not think they envisioned that house "defending" what properly legislated law requires and certainly not (considering debtor's prison level deadbeat feelings) defaulting on paying the costs the Congress and President had properly passed into lawful budget.

              It certainly skirts legality and constitutionality as much as somebody playing right on the edge of tax law, bending until almost breaking.

              The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

              by pelagicray on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 06:03:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  pelag - there is nothing borederline regarding (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kasoru

                the legality of the claim by the diary author. These people cannot be charged with crimes for engaging in political action and protected speech.

                As progressives we should never be advocates for criminalizing politics.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 06:28:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site