Breach of Loyalty
Assume that the following was enacted by the Congress of the United States:
Breach of Loyalty: Any citizen of the United States who believes that the government of the United States shall be overthrown or abolished through force and rebellion shall be guilty of breach of loyalty and punished with life imprisonment.
I. M. Extreme, a 55-year-old male who lives in Florida, was in a bar playing poker with five individuals whom he had met for the first time earlier in the evening. The discussion during the game turned to politics and Extreme commented, “I believe the government is all corrupt. Jefferson said a rebellion now and then is a good thing. Americans should load their guns and teach Washington a lesson.” His statements were reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by one of his poker friends who turned out to be a local police officer. Extreme has been charged with violating the Breach of Loyalty statute.
Discuss his best arguments/defense(s) to this charge
Sample Solution
The Breach of Loyalty statute, as presented, criminalizes any citizen who believes in the overthrow of the U.S. government through force and rebellion. It's a severe charge that raises constitutional questions related to freedom of speech and thought.
Potential Defenses for I.M. Extreme:
-
First Amendment Protection: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, including political speech. Extreme could argue that his statements were protected by this amendment, as they were expressions of opinion and belief rather than incitement to violence.
Full Answer Section
- Lack of Intent: Extreme could claim that he did not intend to incite violence or rebellion. His statements were merely off-the-cuff remarks made in a casual setting and did not reflect a serious intent to overthrow the government.
- Overbreadth of the Statute: The statute might be challenged as being overly broad, potentially criminalizing a wide range of speech that is protected by the First Amendment.
- Vagueness of the Statute: The terms "force and rebellion" might be considered vague, making it difficult to determine exactly what constitutes a violation of the statute.
- Due Process Violation: Extreme could argue that the statute violates his due process rights by failing to provide clear notice of what constitutes a violation and by imposing a severe punishment for what might be considered protected speech.
- Context of the Statements: The context in which Extreme made his statements could be relevant. If he had a history of making similar statements or had been involved in any previous acts of violence or rebellion, it could strengthen the prosecution's case.
- Evidence: The prosecution would need to present evidence that Extreme's statements were made with the intent to incite violence or rebellion. Mere expressions of opinion or belief would not be sufficient.