SEDITION - Opposition Politics Has Gone Too Far

SEDITION - Opposition Politics Has Gone Too Far

In post-2024 America, with Donald J. Trump once again at the helm of the executive branch, a wave of organized resistance has emerged that threatens the foundations of the republic.

From urban protests chanting slogans against federal enforcement to viral social media campaigns urging direct confrontation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and other federal officers and lawmakers demanding military personnel defy lawful orders, these acts of defiance are not mere dissent—they constitute sedition.

As the nation wrestles with border security, immigration enforcement, and the rule of law, it's time to confront this reality head-on: unchecked rebellion and incitement erode democratic institutions. The path forward demands decisive action, including the invocation of martial law to restore order and the use of military tribunals to swiftly prosecute those orchestrating chaos, circumventing the pitfalls of judicial bias and "judge shopping" by activist jurists.

Sedition, as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2384 of the United States Code, involves conspiring to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government of the United States, or to levy war against it, or to oppose by force its authority. This isn't hyperbole; it's statutory fact. Recent incidents show us clearly. In cities like New York and Los Angeles, combatants have blockaded ICE operations, hurled projectiles at agents, and issued public calls for "autonomous zones" free from federal jurisdiction—echoing the 2020 Antifa terrorist assaults on Americans but now explicitly targeted at a duly elected administration's enforcement priorities.

Online manifestos and protest chants decrying "deportation raids" as "genocide" have escalated to explicit directives, such as "disrupt, delay, and destroy" federal operations.

These aren't isolated voices, they're amplified by NGOs, political operatives, and even some elected officials who frame defiance as moral imperative.

When a Portland-based activist group posts videos training recruits to "neutralize" federal officers with improvised weapons, we're not witnessing free speech—we're seeing a blueprint for violent insurrection. Historical repeats: The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 and the draft riots of 1863 were quelled as seditious threats because they sought to nullify federal authority through violence. Today's equivalents demand the same scrutiny.

This sedition isn't spontaneous, it's fueled by a narrative that paints the rule of law as the enemy, undermining public trust in institutions. The result? A broken society where federal officials hesitate to act, the borders remain open, and the criminals and terrorists go unchecked. If left unaddressed, this destabilizes society beyond repair.

The Constitution empowers the president under Article II to take "Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and in extremis, the Insurrection Act of 1807 allows for martial law—the temporary suspension of civilian rule in favor of military governance—to suppress rebellion. Invoking it now isn't authoritarian overreach, it's a necessary scalpel to excise the cancer infecting this nation.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War to counter Confederate sympathizers in the North. It quelled the 1992 Los Angeles riots after civilian authorities buckled. In 2025, with coordinated attacks on ICE facilities—from arson in sanctuary cities to ambushes on border patrol—civilian courts are overwhelmed, and local law enforcement is often complicit or just paralyzed by politics.

Martial law would enable rapid deployment of National Guard units to secure hotspots, detain ringleaders, including the elected, without endless procedural delays, and enforce curfews in crime ridden areas, giving authorities the ability to reestablish domestic tranquility for law abiding citizens.

The "I Hate America" left cries fascism, but safeguards exist. Congress can terminate it, and the Supreme Court has upheld its use when civilian processes collapse (as in Ex parte Milligan, 1866, which set limits but affirmed necessity). In an era of deepfakes and flash mobs, waiting for riots to metastasize invites catastrophe.

Martial law isn't permanent—it's a bridge to stability, buying time to prosecute threats without the chaos of street-level violence.

Once order is imposed, prosecution must follow—not through the clogged federal judiciary, rife with "judge shopping" where ideologically driven attorneys forum-shop for sympathetic activist judges, but via military tribunals. Established under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and precedents like the post-9/11 military commissions, these tribunals are designed for wartime or insurrectionary threats, offering efficiency unburdened by partisan delays.

Why tribunals? Civilian courts, particularly in liberal strongholds, have become battlegrounds for activism.

Recall how sanctuary city mayors have sued to block ICE, or how federal judges in California and New York have issued nationwide injunctions against Trump-era policies based on novel interpretations of the Constitution. Judge shopping—filing cases in districts with known anti-enforcement benches—turns justice into a lottery, where outcomes hinge on geography rather than law.

Military tribunals sidestep all of that. Panels of officers, versed in national security, can adjudicate sedition charges with evidence, delivering verdicts in weeks, not years.

The legal basis is ironclad. The Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin (1942) endorsed tribunals for saboteurs, affirming that when domestic enemies wage "unlawful belligerency," military justice prevails. For bad actors—be they NGO funders wiring cash to rioters or influencers inciting violence—tribunals ensure accountability. Penalties? Up to life imprisonment or, in extreme cases, execution for treasonous acts, deterring copycats and signaling that sedition has consequences.

This isn't vengeance. It's vindication of the rule of law. By centralizing prosecutions, we neutralize the uneven application of justice that has emboldened radicals.

America stands at the crossroads. The recent defiance against President Trump—manifested in calls to assault ICE agents and defy federal officers—isn't protected dissent. It's incitement against constitution itself. It's sedition that invites national dissolution. Enacting martial law to quell the storm and prosecuting via military tribunals, free from the taint of judge shopping, offers the only viable salve.

This approach preserves the Union, upholds the Constitution, and secures a future where law trumps anarchy. The alternative? A slow unraveling, where borders dissolve, cities burn, and our republic withers under the weight of its own tolerance for treason. History judges leaders by their resolve—President Trump, and the nation he leads, must choose resolve now. This republic's survival demands nothing less.