What sedition looks like

Sedition is defined as “any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection.”

Would you like to see the real world version?  No, I’m not talking about Fox or other anti-Obama outlets thinly protected by the First Amendment.  I’m talking about Arizona Bill 1433:

via Talking Points Memo:

After being shot down earlier this week, the Arizona State Senate revived and successfully passed a bill that would create a mechanism for the state to nullify federal laws.

As TPM has reported, Senate Bill 1433 would create a 12-person “Joint Legislative Committee on Nullification of Federal Laws,” which would “recommend, propose and call for a vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the People to the federal government in the United States Constitution.”

The article goes on to clarify what the position of the Constitution is on this matter by quoting the actual Constitution, something Republicans love to talk about doing but tend to forget when it’s inconvenient:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

This is the very definition of sedition and no, it’s not protected speech.  Why is it that this is tolerated by conservative voters?  Why is OK to hate your government when that government is Democratic but even disagreeing with a Republican administration is treason?

Republicans like to talk about the slippery slope to tyranny but this is, what? A patriotic fight to undo the Civil War?  What happens when a state decides that black people can’t vote? Or that slavery’s not that bad? If state rights’ are supreme, where do you draw the line?  This isn’t a ridiculous worst case example like gay marriage leading to man on dog marriage.  We’ve literally fought the bloodiest war in American history over this very thing and Republicans want to revisit the underlying causes?  I can’t imagine how that could possibly be a bad thing.

If anyone can find this blatant an assault on the Constitution by a Democratic state government within our lifetime, I’d be very curious as to the circumstances.