Teabaggers and Constitutional rights

[ProSense]

Poll question: Teabaggers and Constitutional rights

Do you believe teabaggers (American people) have a Constitutional right to attempt to violently overthrow the government?

The preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

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.

There is nothing that states that a government "instituted" (duly elected, which the British were not) by the governed is subject to violent overthrow because assholes are pissed off. The Constitution includes the checks and balances that has worked for more than two centuries to prevent the U.S. government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical.

Also:

The defeat of the British preceded the formation of the U.S. government.

...In 1777, the Articles of Confederation established a weak confederal government that operated until 1789.

After the British defeat by American forces assisted by the French, Great Britain recognized the independence of the United States and the states' sovereignty over American territory west to the Mississippi River. A constitutional convention was organized in 1787 by those wishing to establish a strong national government, with powers of taxation. The United States Constitution was ratified in 1788, and the new republic's first Senate, House of Representatives, and president—George Washington—took office in 1789. The Bill of Rights, forbidding federal restriction of personal freedoms and guaranteeing a range of legal protections, was adopted in 1791.

link

The teabaggers are not American revolutionaries.

There is no right to insurrection.

Given the above: Do you believe teabaggers (American people) have a Constitutional right to attempt to violently overthrow the government?

[spanone]

1. 'constitutional right to violence' you're kidding right?

[ProSense]

2. No,

it's a serious question.

[tekisui]

3. As I said before, it doesn't matter.

The Constitution does give the power to the government to squash rebellions or insurrections. The government has the power and ability to take down any internal threat.

If the teabaggers could overthrow the government, it would no longer be the US.

[ProSense]

4. It does matter

some people, including the teabaggers, seem to think this is an established right.

[tekisui]

39. So?

So what if they do? Do you think it really matters to them whether it is an established right? Would they act any differently?

It is an absurdity to suggest that violent overthrow would be codified. Violent overthrow is a means to change the government. It would not be written into law. Laws will only define the political ways to change the government.

It is a silly question.

[ProSense]

43. "So"?

"Would they act any differently? It is an absurdity to suggest that violent overthrow would be codified."

Yet there are people who believe it is codified (check the poll).

[tekisui]

44. What I am saying is it doesn't matter.

It is in the Declaration of Independence and people have the 'right' to do whatever they want. And, the US government has the right to squash them.

The right exists, it is immaterial if it is written in the Constitution (which it is not) or the DoI (which it is) or if it is not written anywhere.

THey have a right to try, but they don't have a right to choose their consequences and it is still illegal.

[ProSense]

45. Disagree

"The right exists, it is immaterial if it is written in the Constitution (which it is not) or the DoI (which it is) or if it is not written anywhere."

See the OP.

"THey have a right to try, but they don't have a right to choose their consequences and it is still illegal."

That's like saying people have a right to try to rob banks or kill each other, but can't chose the consequences because it's illegal.

They can choose to rob banks or commit acts of violence, but they don't have a right to do so.

[tekisui]

46. Sure they have the right to try and rob banks, that is

how people do it. The right exists. We are free people, in that we have free agency. We have the right to do whatever the hell we want.

We do not have the right to ignore the consequences from society.

[KittyWampus]

5. Your question mistakenly confuses Teabaggers and Militias. They are NOT the same.

And since the Feds have started taking down some Militia groups today, I really wish DU'ers would stop perpetuating a false equivalency. The Teabaggers may enjoy talking trash or happily tolerate those who do, but it's only a FEW who'd join any active violence. And of those few, it's even less who'd go further than throwing invective at Democratic Congressional members and bricks through their window.

Here's a picture of the majority of Teabaggers- they're not going to get up early on the weekends to train in a paramilitary group.

[ProSense]

6. LOL! What a sorry photo.

OK, substitute teabaggers for militias (still American people). This only makes the notion of a right to attempt a violent overthrow even more ludicrous.

[Cresent City Kid]

11. The ones in the photo aren't as gullible as I thought

At least they didn't get suckered in by the Snuggie commercials, though the RV may have been Shamwowed.

[havocmom]

14. and they don't make dogs wear camo like the militia boys

[kestrel91316]

63. Why do you keep trying to convince us that teaklanners are harmless?

Just curious. You sound precariously like an apologist for them.

[Renegades of Funk]

7. Consent of the Governed

It's not like the election was rigged, so we do have consent of the governed.

[damonm]

8. Must qualify my "yes"...

Do you have the right to "alter or abolish" a form of gov't if it fails to secure the inalienable rights? YES, absolutely. I myself made this point several times in the last 8 years. Of course, the proper method is the ballot box.
But if the government ignores the ballot box, as happened several times turing the Bush accidency, then violence may be the only practical means available.

[ProSense]

9. So you believe Americans had the right to violently overthrow the Bush government?

"But if the government ignores the ballot box, as happened several times turing the Bush accidency, then violence may be the only practical means available."

Really, why didn't you or anyone who vehemently opposed the Bush administration advocate this?

[damonm]

67. You will note I said "may be"...

...and not "is" - not a small difference, as a violent overthrow of any government is the court of (utterly) last resort. There may come a time when it's necessary - I just hope I don't live to see it, and we're not even CLOSE to that now. We came closer under the Bushies than I thought possible.
Jefferson was not specific in his comment in the Declaration as to "the right of the people to alter or abolish it", and I do not think that any avenue should be foreclosed out of hand. Just as long as one is willing to live with the consequences of the likely failure of such an approach.

As to your question, I would have been doing so, had things gone very much further south - fortunately, the 2006 election happened, so the question was rightly abandoned.

As to "anyone (else)", you'll have to ask them, as I don't live in their heads.

Interesting - methinks this is the first time we've been at odds.

[bridgit]

10. Not because baggers woke up one day to discover they disagreed with Barack Obama...

The rights we have were forged of a specific reference to a time when we were, as a for instance, shot with our own guns if we had them though of course we were essentially disallowed to own with The British being keen on gun control in colonial commonwealths and such ='ing the 2nd, etc; free press - ? - and why not after having our presses dragged into the commons set on fire then the publisher shot dead before his sobbing family with *his* own gun; religion, assembly, expression, etc, etc, etc, in response to having them all severally disallowed & dismissed, out of hand, and by a Monarch with deadly world-projecting disruptions with the royal, mean spirited tyranny to make them happen not - come hell or high water - so if baggers are lacking anything which of course they are - then that would be any sense of historical perspective able to justify such thoughts of over turning even the America we see today when the kings & queens may still oft times luncheon at Balmoral in their ancestral kilts and finery where their names are still not Scott Brown & Sarah Palin


I care less whether it shows up wrapped in the American flag smelling like Toby's boot after he put it up someone's ass...the moment it conducts itself as a tyrannical neo-Nazism I say it goes down thankfully...process offers several means to do so short of armed conflict

[rug]

12. That's a stupid question.

Of course people have the right to overthrow a government. What's stupid is expecting it to be found in its foundational document.

Let me ask you this. Does a government have the right to maintain itself by violence?

If so, what happens when the aims of that government clash with the aims of its people?

[ProSense]

13. That's a stupid response.

"Of course people have the right to overthrow a government. What's stupid is expecting it to be found in its foundational document."

Who gives them the right? Also, the point is that some people, including the teabaggers, are claiming it's in a foundational document.

"Let me ask you this. Does a government have the right to maintain itself by violence?"

Answer.

[rug]

16. And that's a stupid reply.

Did you actually type: "Who gives them the right?"

Do you know what a right is? Do you seriously believe it is something to be given, and therefore logically retrieved?

BTW, your link does not answer my second question.

[ProSense]

17. Seriously, quit being obtuse.

The OP asks a direct question: Do people have the Constitutional right?

You can claim people have an inherent right to commit acts of violence or pick their noses, but that does not answer the question posed.

[rug]

18. I'll give you a direct answer.

No, because the foundational document of any government enshrines its right to continued existence by the use of violence.

Which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether people have the right to overthrow that government along with its apparatus.

Now, quit being evasive. Can you answer my question?

[ProSense]

19. And you still miss the point

"Which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether people have the right to overthrow that government along with its apparatus."

That wasn't the question, which specifically stated "Constitutional right."

"Now, quit being evasive. Can you answer my question?"

Does a duly elected government have a right to unleash the military on citizens who express disagreement: no.

Does a duly elected government have a right to unleash the military on citizens who are violently attacking government officials and institutions: yes.

[rug]

23. You still haven't answered the question.

Rephrasing the question is not answering the question.

[ProSense]

25. "Rephrasing the question is not answering the question." Yes it is, but if you insist

"Let me ask you this. Does a government have the right to maintain itself by violence?"

No.

[rug]

30. Thank you, but that was the wrong question and that answer

contradicts your answer in #13.

The question was, "If so, what happens when the aims of that government clash with the aims of its people?"

[ProSense]

31. No it didn't, but to this:

"The question was, 'If so, what happens when the aims of that government clash with the aims of its people?'"

Checks and balances

There is no Constitutional right to violently overthrow a duly elected government. There have been many times when the actions of government were unpopular.

[rug]

32. It would be simpler if you just said you didn't want to answer the question.

If I wanted to discuss civics, I'd go over my son's eighth grade homework.

[ProSense]

33. Now, you're just being disingenuous. Which question didn't I answer? n/t

[rug]

36. Disingenuous?

In the context of violent repression versus violent revolution, you posit Checks and Balances?

If you lived in the eighteenth century and had any influence, we'd be wearing powdered wigs today.

[ProSense]

37. Yes, disingenuous.

"The question was, 'If so, what happens when the aims of that government clash with the aims of its people?'"

"In the context of violent repression versus violent revolution, you posit Checks and Balances?"

Where was the context of violent oppression in that question: are you implying that "aims of that government clash" infers that the government is engaged in violent repression?

Your entire argument has been a non sequitur.

[rug]

38. I must have misread "violently overthrow" in your OP.

As you missed, and self-contradicted, the comments about government violence.

Things usually don't follow when you deliberately ignore things.

[ProSense]

40. Yeah, you also missed "Constitutional right." n/t

[rug]

41. No, I answered that eons ago. Go back and look.

[ProSense]

42. "Go back and look."

That's a stupid question.

Of course people have the right to overthrow a government. What's stupid is expecting it to be found in its foundational document.

link

Non sequitur.

[Uncle Joe]

60. Here is my answer to your questions.

"Let me ask you this. Does a government have the right to maintain itself by violence?"

The answer to your first question is yes so long as the violence is legal, but not illegal violence.

"If so, what happens when the aims of that government clash with the aims of its people?"

The answer to your second question is for the people to change the government through every possible peaceful means; ie strikes, petition, voting, boycotts, sit-ins, protest marches etc. etc. until that government changes or collapses.

[lpbk2713]

15. They have a right to publicly display their profound ignorance.

And I certainly have a right to point and LMFAO at them.

[customerserviceguy]

20. We need to be careful about equating all who are enamored

of the tea party movement with the fringe who are violent. Perhaps some of you here who have been born since 1970 think of the Sixties as rock n' roll, free love, pot and Woodstock, but I remember them as very troubled times. It wasn't just sadness at the killing of the Kennedys, or the revulsion at the Vietnam War, but there was a heavy amount of racial tension, too.

I remember the common tactic of the right wing to label every person who favored voting and housing equality as some sort of H. Rap Brown, Black Panther, 'burn, baby, burn' type, who was intent on destroying the country. It was successful in scaring enough people to vote for the "law and order" candidate Richard Nixon, even with George Wallace bleeding off the votes of the severely racist.

Painting others with a broad brush is never a step on the path to understanding.

[ProSense]

21. Completely agree. Of course,

this only applies to those among them who are advocating violence.

[customerserviceguy]

24. I've also made the same point

about calling all tea partiers racists. One witch-doctor sign in a crowd does not make the movement bigoted.

[ProSense]

26. No, they're

not all racists. Some are bigots and others are merely ignorant sympathizers.

"One witch-doctor sign in a crowd does not make the movement bigoted."

Were it only one. Unfortunately, the signs and actions aren't limited to a handful.

[Xenotime]

35. It's enough to know they are enemies of the state and a threat to other citizens.

[customerserviceguy]

70. Wow, that's language straight from the Sixties

The only thing is, I heard it applied to people who were for civil rights, and against the Vietnam War.

[kestrel91316]

64. Understanding them is not necessary. Ensuring that they do not

succeed at their goal of eliminating Dems and turning the US into a christofascist utopia is.

[customerserviceguy]

71. Yeah, that first line's familiar, too

I heard it used back in 2001 to describe how we should feel towards Muslims.

Funny how things come around full circle...

[JerseygirlCT]

22. They have a right to peaceful protest, to political organizing

but they never have a right to use violence.

[oldhippie]

27. It really just depends on who wins ......

If the govt wins, then the "terrorist insurgents" were crushed and their leaders tried for treason.

If the "people" win, then it is a successful revolution and the leaders become the founding fathers of the new "instituted" govt.

It's really that simple. Rights are irrelevant.

[suston96]

28. All Americans have the right to change their government if.....

....they believe that the government does not meet and satisfy their needs, as expressed in the historical founding documents.

That includes their rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - as well as the purposes outlined in the Preamble to the US Constitution.

The way to change their government is outlined in the US Constitution. Here is a short essay on that outline:

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

Why violence when there is a peaceful way to change a government that some or many may believe doesn't work for them?

[B Calm]

29. "We The People" are the government! I don't take threats from a few

asshole hillbillies lightly!

[Xenotime]

34. It's time to start putting them in jail. Charge them with treason.

[On the Road]

47. The Declaration of Independence

states that there is a natural right to rebel against a tyrannical government under certain conditions.

But constitutional rights are granted by the US constitution, which is a different document not necesarily consistent with the Declaration.

The constitution does not grant a constitutional right to armed revolt. Unless, that is, you believe that the second amendment was specifically worded to grant citizens or state militias the right to an armed revolt. John Adams certainly didn't think so -- he thought insurrectionists should be executed -- but he's not the only arbiter.

[HughMoran]

48. I think you're taking this a little too far

Sorry - you're mixing up concepts here to 'prove I'm right'. You can't make this into a black and white question no matter how hard you try.

[ProSense]

49. "Sorry - you're mixing up concepts here to 'prove I'm right'." What concepts am I mixing?

"You can't make this into a black and white question no matter how hard you try."

It's a question, nothing is ever black and white. What is clear, though, is that some people actually believe there the Constitution justifies violent overthrows, which is absurd.

[HughMoran]

50. There are many posts here which you don't disagree with that make my point

"History is written by the winners"

The right to overthrow a tyrannical government (say we had a Beck type take over and start throwing liberals in jail and executing them) is something most Americans believe they have - when the government goes 'extra Constitutional' so do the rights of the citizens. You're trying to frame this only WRT Teabaggers, I can't do that.

[ProSense]

51. "History is written by the winners"

What does that have to do with whether or not Americans have a Constitutional right to violently overthrow the government?

The right to overthrow a tyrannical government (say we had a Beck type take over and start throwing liberals in jail and executing them) is something most Americans believe they have - when the government goes 'extra Constitutional' so do the rights of the citizens. You're trying to frame this only WRT Teabaggers, I can't do that.

That's a hell of a hypothetical. Which is why the OP stated:

There is nothing that states that a government "instituted" (duly elected, which the British were not) by the governed is subject to violent overthrow because assholes are pissed off. The Constitution includes the checks and balances that has worked for more than two centuries to prevent the U.S. government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical.

[HughMoran]

52. I refuse to frame this only WRT the Teabaggers because you were annoyed at the previous polls'

language. I know you have a stubborn streak and it's showing here.

Both viewpoints are correct and it does have to do with the 'extra Constitutional' aspect, but it's hardly a hell of a hypothetical and is exactly what most who voted "yes" in the previous poll were thinking. I understand your point and, of course have already stated that the Teabaggers are idiots who have no right to do anything more than protest peacefully.

[ProSense]

53. Not only are you responding based on an emotional assumption, you're

resorting to a cop out:

"Both viewpoints are correct and it does have to do with the 'extra Constitutional' aspect, but it's hardly a hell of a hypothetical and is exactly what most who voted yes in the previous poll were thinking."

How do you know what they were thinking?

If you don't want to debate the point, fine, but don't start throwing around baseless accusations.

[HughMoran]

54. Don't acknowledge an obvious viewpoint because it doesn't fit into your 'equation'

whatever - you know I'm right.

[ProSense]

55. Here

is the equation: Do you believe teabaggers (American people) have a Constitutional right to attempt to violently overthrow the government?

As for your "extra Constitutional" point, it doesn't remotely address the question.

[HughMoran]

56. Answered previously.

Now admit that this thread is a continuation of this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8033100

[ProSense]

58. "Now admit that this thread is a continuation of this one"

So your point is to whine about the thread?

This thread was started to make the exact point made in the OP. This isn't the last time this point will be debated.

[HughMoran]

59. farthest thing from 'whining'

As someone who usually agrees with you, I would hope that you would be understanding when I choose to disagree at times. Do you really think anybody here (who is sane) thinks the Teabaggers have a right to commit violent acts?

[ProSense]

61. It's not a matter of you choosing to disagree.

I thought the question was valid.

"Do you really think anybody here (who is sane) thinks the Teabaggers have a right to commit violent acts?

Check the poll.

[HughMoran]

62. Have a nice day

:hi:

[kentuck]

57. The defining phrase from the Preamble...

"deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

And how do they derive those just powers from the consent of the governed? They have elections - every two and four years. We just had an election in November of 2008. The people over-whelmingly chose the Democrats and Barack Obama to lead this nation. That is called the consent of the governed. There is nothing since then that would give anyone the right to incite violence or overthrow of this duly elected government...

[guitar man]

65. I think it comes down to common sense

If we elect a president and congress and they pass legislation we don't like, so be it, hopefully we can vote them out next time around and get somebody better, but that's no reason to get violent. However, if they start hauling people off to the gas chamber in mass or something similar to what Hitler did, I believe we have a duty at that point to do something to stop it.

[Uncle Joe]

66. I believe the duty begins long before people are hauled to gas chambers, but the means should be

peaceful.

Enshrining the bullet over that of the law can only lead to chaos, anarchy and the rise of demagogues; willing to have the people wage war against them selves.

Hitler could have been stopped by peaceful means, had the German People en masse respected the rule of law and justice over that of the bullet and personal agendas.

This was the time for them to do it, if not before.

Reichstag fire and the March elections

Having become Chancellor, Hitler foiled all attempts by his opponents to gain a majority in parliament. Because no single party could gain a majority, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag again. Elections were scheduled for early March, but on 27 February 1933, the Reichstag building was set on fire.<72> Since a Dutch independent communist was found in the building, the fire was blamed on a communist plot. The government reacted with the Reichstag Fire Decree of 28 February which suspended basic rights, including habeas corpus. Under the provisions of this decree, the German Communist Party (KPD) and other groups were suppressed, and Communist functionaries and deputies were arrested, forced to flee, or murdered.

Campaigning continued, with the Nazis making use of paramilitary violence, anti-communist hysteria, and the government's resources for propaganda. On election day, 6 March, the NSDAP increased its result to 43.9% of the vote, remaining the largest party, but its victory was marred by its failure to secure an absolute majority, necessitating maintaining a coalition with the DNVP.<73>

"Day of Potsdam" and the Enabling Act

On 21 March, the new Reichstag was constituted with an opening ceremony held at Potsdam's garrison church. This "Day of Potsdam" was staged to demonstrate reconciliation and unity between the revolutionary Nazi movement and "Old Prussia" with its elites and virtues. Hitler appeared in a tail coat and humbly greeted the aged President Hindenburg.

Because of the Nazis' failure to obtain a majority on their own, Hitler's government confronted the newly elected Reichstag with the Enabling Act that would have vested the cabinet with legislative powers for a period of four years. Though such a bill was not unprecedented, this act was different since it allowed for deviations from the constitution. Since the bill required a ⅔ majority in order to pass, the government needed the support of other parties. The position of the Centre Party, the third largest party in the Reichstag, turned out to be decisive: under the leadership of Ludwig Kaas, the party decided to vote for the Enabling Act. It did so in return for the government's oral guarantees regarding the Church's liberty, the concordats signed by German states and the continued existence of the Centre Party.

On 23 March, the Reichstag assembled in a replacement building under extremely turbulent circumstances. Some SA men served as guards within while large groups outside the building shouted slogans and threats toward the arriving deputies. Kaas announced that the Centre Party would support the bill with "concerns put aside," while Social Democrat Otto Wels denounced the act in his speech. At the end of the day, all parties except the Social Democrats voted in favour of the bill. The Communists, as well as some Social Democrats, were barred from attending. The Enabling Act, combined with the Reichstag Fire Decree, transformed Hitler's government into a legal dictatorship.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

[Capitalocracy]

68. People have that right, but not a "Constitutional" right.

People of course have the right to overthrow the government if it fails to govern in an acceptable manner, but this is practically by definition an extraconstitutional affair. People have the right to determine their form of government, and sometimes this is done through violence, although this is not always the smartest, most effective, or a moral way to go about it... as in all things, violence needs to be an absolute last resort. In other words, people have a right to use violence if all else fails... but not, obviously, when they fail through legitimate means like a fair and democratic election.

However, our Constitution most certainly does not allow for violent overthrow of the government by its people, and I've never heard of one that does. If our government no longer acts in a way which recognizes the Constitution, it's still an extraconstitutional act to attempt to correct this through violence. If our Constitution itself is disfunctional, then the overthrow of government requires the writing of a new one. But deciding that you and your organization are the judge and jury of what is or is not Constitutional for your government to do and enforcing it through violence is inherently illegitimate except in the most extreme of circumstances.

[Turborama]

69. FWIW It's against the law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_115.html">TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 — TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002383----000-.html">§ 2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002384----000-.html">§ 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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002385----000-.html">§ 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.

If found guilty they can have their citizenship revoked, too.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/III/III/1481">8 U.S.C. § 1481 : US Code - Section 1481: Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

=snip=

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by
force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States,
violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of
section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in
violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384
of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down,
or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to
levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a
court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

I've been going into detail about politicians and public figures who can be arrested and charged under this law, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x244130">here.

-