Governor Patrick Plays the Sedition Card

Peter Wilson
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick reiterated the accusation made last month by Time columnist Joe Klein: disagreeing with the legislative agenda of the Obama Administration is dangerously close to "sedition."  According to the Boston Globe:

[D]ecrying partisanship in Washington, [Gov. Patrick] said yesterday that Republican opposition to President Obama is so reflexive that it "is almost at the level of sedition...I'm most frustrated about folks who seem to be rooting for failure.''

"The number of people in the Grand Old Party who seem to be absolutely committed to saying ‘No,' whenever he says ‘Yes,' ... is just extraordinary,'' the governor said.

Mass GOP chairwoman Jennifer Nassour responded:  "Apparently our First Amendment rights are only guaranteed if we agree with the tax-and-spend policies of Deval Patrick and Barack Obama."

One might add that Obama is not a king, and disagreements over policy are part of the process established by the Constitution.  The Deval Patricks and Joe Kleins of the world cannot imagine that when Obama says he wants to "fundamentally transform" America, he means it.  Saying "no" to radical change is not seditious; it is an attempt to defend our government rather than to overthrow it.

Since the door to irresponsible accusation has been opened, it's worth taking a look around the room.  Wikipedia defines sedition as:

a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

Keep in mind that in the United States, "legal authority" derives from "we the people."   The "established order" is defined by the U.S. Constitution.   Isn't the Obama Administration guilty of ignoring the will of the people, subverting the Constitution and inciting discontent?
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick reiterated the accusation made last month by Time columnist Joe Klein: disagreeing with the legislative agenda of the Obama Administration is dangerously close to "sedition."  According to the Boston Globe:

[D]ecrying partisanship in Washington, [Gov. Patrick] said yesterday that Republican opposition to President Obama is so reflexive that it "is almost at the level of sedition...I'm most frustrated about folks who seem to be rooting for failure.''

"The number of people in the Grand Old Party who seem to be absolutely committed to saying ‘No,' whenever he says ‘Yes,' ... is just extraordinary,'' the governor said.

Mass GOP chairwoman Jennifer Nassour responded:  "Apparently our First Amendment rights are only guaranteed if we agree with the tax-and-spend policies of Deval Patrick and Barack Obama."

One might add that Obama is not a king, and disagreements over policy are part of the process established by the Constitution.  The Deval Patricks and Joe Kleins of the world cannot imagine that when Obama says he wants to "fundamentally transform" America, he means it.  Saying "no" to radical change is not seditious; it is an attempt to defend our government rather than to overthrow it.

Since the door to irresponsible accusation has been opened, it's worth taking a look around the room.  Wikipedia defines sedition as:

a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

Keep in mind that in the United States, "legal authority" derives from "we the people."   The "established order" is defined by the U.S. Constitution.   Isn't the Obama Administration guilty of ignoring the will of the people, subverting the Constitution and inciting discontent?