Pointless thread

[kalakoa]

With intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition

State legalizing marijuana in contravention of Federal law?

[PunaMauka2]

Well, that was oddly predictable. Plenty semantics for you to run and tap dance with there, kalakoa.

[The_Saints]

PM2 - Not at all. I am merely stating that civil disobedience has a clear threshold that must be reached to be considered unlawful activity. Conduct, whether you label it civil disobedience, or not, has defined bounds of acceptability in our society. The assertion that the label makes a difference is not supported in statutory law, or the practical application of case law.

Kalakoa - The state is not a "person", and as such is not culpable for such conduct. Additionally, in the instance of Colorado, for example, the action of cannabis legalization was instituted by the people through a constitutional referendum. Therefore, it in and of itself is the 'civil authority.' 'Civil authority,' though often mistaken to mean the government, is not a reference to the government itself. Rather, it refers to the power of the people to self govern. In Hawaii this power is codified in our constitution, in Section 1 of Article 1.

"All political power of this State is inherent in the people; and the responsibility for the exercise thereof rests with the people. All government is founded on this authority."

[kalakoa]

Rather, it refers to the power of the people to self govern. In Hawaii this power is codified in our constitution

Well, then. How about the State simply get out of our way?

[The_Saints]

Unfortunately we do not have a referendum process here. And, I don't see anyone making any great effort to institute one. So, we, as the people of the state, must effect our collective will through our proxies. Namely, our elected representatives. Not nearly as easy, or precise, as a referendum process. And, so we have the mess that we try to manage, known as our state and county governments.

To people who say that they want it to change, I say change it.

[VancouverIslander]

quote:

---

Originally posted by snorkle

Yeah HOTPE and Vancouver dude; How about those pesky colored folks? and what about them illegally sitting in the white area, or thinking they can ride in the front of the bus? Or voting? You can bet they don't put up with those kind of shenanigans in Canada or on the Primal Edge.[](not laughing with you)

---

Hey Snorkle, how about reading what I actually said instead of manufacturing a straw man argument based on your biases? What I said was, whether it's right or wrong, there is no inherent right to civil disobedience under the law. Some times it's the right thing to do (Ghandi) and some times it's probably wrong (Oregon public land occupation). Of course, it's probably pointless to respond to you as you are probably only posting to troll the forum again and just stir things up.

Just call me Mike

[PunaMauka2]

"...I am merely stating that civil disobedience has a clear threshold that must be reached to be considered unlawful activity."

Civil disobedience by it's very definition involves unlawful activity.


"Conduct, whether you label it civil disobedience, or not, has defined bounds of acceptability in our society. The assertion that the label makes a difference is not supported in ...the practical application of case law."

Restraint and discretion by law enforcement to enforce certain laws being violated by those deemed to be engaged in peaceful civil disobedience happens all the time, often wisely so. It is very common to give a certain amount of leeway to peaceful political protest that may involve unlawful acts of a disruptive nature which otherwise would likely be met with more rigorous arrest and prosecution involving run of the mill criminal activity.


Still unsure what your reasoning was with citing the law detailing mutiny and sedition. Any threshold for defining civil disobedience certainly doesn't rely on that.

[PunaMauka2]

Vancouverislander, I understood and appreciate what you were saying and quite agree.


Saints, appreciate the exchange and your posts elsewhere, too.

[The_Saints]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PunaMauka2

"Civil disobedience by it's very definition involves unlawful activity.

---

That is not true. People may chose to commit specific illegal actions while engaged in civil disobedience. However, it is those specific actions themselves which are proscribed. However, for civil disobedience itself to rise to the level of being deemed as illegal, it must meet the threshold laid out by law. Which is why I quoted the applicable statute.

Civil disobedience, when not coupled with other actions that are in and of themselves illegal, is not itself illegal, until it rises to the level of sedition. Many forms of permissible civil disobedience are in fact protected rights. Such as civil disobedience which occurs within the bounds our First Amendment rights.

Another example of how civil disobedience does not always rise to the level of being unlawful, is that for specific conduct to be illegal it must (a)be codified as proscribed, and (b)that codification must carry a specific penalty. Though it is unlawful to desecrate the flag, insofar as the United States Code prohibits doing so, there is no penalty for doing so, and therefore it is not actually 'illegal' to do so in either the common vernacular sense of the word, or the legal sense of the concept.

[The_Saints]

PM2 - I likewise appreciate the exchange. And, I am enjoying the novelty of a civil discussion about civil disobedience.