Wondered about a new revolution, the removal of politicians currently in office or...well...haha I am treading carefully because I really don't want to be on another government list. Fairly sure I am on one or two just because I won't shut up! Oh well!

So here is some information for you all. First thanks to one of my favorite sites of all time Findlaw.com is the statute and then just for $hits and grins there's some case law that following.

* United States Code
o TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
+ PART I - CRIMES
# CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any
such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,
group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or
violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any
such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes
thereof -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in
this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for
employment by the United States or any department or agency
thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize",
with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include
the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the
regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units
of such society, group, or assembly of persons.



Case law...not sure it's an example of the most current but it still is good law I think. I am not logging into another site to do that. Lazy me!

US Supreme Court:
Gitlow v. New York

268 U.S. 652 (1925), argued 12 Apr. 1923, reargued 23 Nov. 1923, decided 8 June 1925 by vote of 7 to 2; Sanford for the Court, Holmes and Brandeis in dissent. The landmark Gitlow case marks the beginning of the “incorporation” of the First Amendment as a limitation on the states. This process, which continued selectively over the next fifty years, resulted in major changes in the modern law of civil liberties, affording citizens a federal remedy if the states deprived them of their fundamental rights. Ironically, however, the Court rejected Gitlow's free speech claim. At the time, the ruling's significance was largely doctrinal.

Benjamin Gitlow was a member of the left‐wing section of the Socialist party. He was convicted for violating the New York Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902, which made it a crime to advocate the violent overthrow of the government. Specifically, he had been arrested during the 1920 red scare for writing, publishing and distributing sixteen thousand copies of a pamphlet called Left‐wing Manifesto that urged the establishment of socialism by strikes and “class action … in any form.” He was also charged with being an “evil disposed and pernicious person,” with a “wicked and turbulent disposition,” who tried to “excite discontent and disaffection.” At his trial, the famed attorney Clarence Darrow sought to frame the entire issue as one of freedom of speech on the grounds that the Left‐wing Manifesto advocated nothing but urged abstract doctrine. The New York court, however, ruled that Communists had to be held responsible for the potential danger of their abstract concepts and upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court used the case as an occasion to examine the concept that the speech and press protections of the First Amendment should be extended to the states. Gitlow's brief, prepared by the brilliant ACLU lawyer Walter H. Pollak, argued persuasively that liberty of expression was a right to be protected against state abridgment. This, he contended, was established by the authoritative determination of the meaning of liberty as used in the Fourteenth Amendment and by implicit declarations with respect to the related right of free assembly. The Court was impressed. Justice Edward T. Sanford, speaking for the majority, agreed that “for present purposes, we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press … are among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States” (p. 666). He nonetheless sustained the New York law and upheld Gitlow's conviction. “[A] state may punish utterances endangering the foundations of organized government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means,” Sanford wrote (p. 667). Gitlow's pamphlet, while not immediately inciting criminal action, could be viewed as a “revolutionary spark” that might at some later time burst into “sweeping and destructive conflagration” (p. 669).

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a famous dissent in which Justice Louis D. Brandeis concurred. He disagreed with the majority's ruling that words separated from action could be punished. Holmes declared, “The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason. But whatever may be thought of the redundant discourse before us, it had no chance of starting a present conflagration” (p. 673). This view, which called for punishment of action, not expression, under the clear and present danger doctrine, was to be embraced by the Supreme Court in the 1960s.

The Gitlow decision launched “incorporation” of the First Amendment. It was not until Stromberg v. California (1931), however, that the Court actually ruled a state law unconstitutional on First Amendment free speech grounds.

— Paul L. Murphy
Free Online Dictionary, Encyclopedia, Thesaurus and much more

Search Answers.com

yup thats why it'll take a lot of people

a LOT of armed people

last time it was called the Civil War

dare we repeat that?

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world

--------------

it is our right and duty to replace an overbearing govt

A little revolution now and then is a good thing..

armed insurrection kinda IS the American Way isn't it

Here is my take.

No

Why? Because there would be all sorts of countries who would gladly take advantage of our weakness if that happened here.

Is it possiable that the government would impose Marshall Law and attempt to quash citizens? Hell yes it is. It wouldn't surprise me at all if circumstances allowed it. If that happened the results would likely change the world. The power grabs would or could be mind boggling.

I do think Americans need to be more vigilant, more involved and active in all levels of government. We need to demand transparency and accountability, we need to run for local, state and national offices and quit electing different members of the same power elite, we need to educate ourselves and our children so that we can find countries on a map and understand their cultures and politics, we need to get off our lazy asses and renew a commitment to citizenship, we need to realize that the politicians who seek to divide us into red and blue really don't care about anything but their green.

We are stronger together than apart. Lincoln's words again ring true..."A house divided against itself cannot stand"

Well they have been ignoring us for years...what difference would it make if we rose up against those in power?

I still say we could have a coup with our vote...vote out the incumbant.

Sorry, but this law isn't constitutional. It violates free speech for one.
The founders make it clear that it is the duty of the People to cast off a Government that has become criminal, to impeach a president who acts like a despot.

Thats what the Bill of rights is supposed to be about. To protect the people from Government and to give the people an avenue to throw off oppressive Government.

We the People have the right/duty to ignore and violate unconstitutional laws.

(Good thing I don't fly much, I'd probably be getting a good colon cleansing otherwise.)