Isn't it horribly un-American for a president's administration to state he's at war with the press, and to spy on and prosecute journalists?
The Obama White House communications director, Anita Dunn, said at the time, “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” In 2013, the Obama Justice Department labeled then-Fox News reporter James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act of 1917. And all because the reporter used a State Department contractor as a source for a story. Rosen was also labeled a "flight risk." The Justice Department seized the records of at least five phone lines connected to Fox News. The federal law enforcement agency even seized the phone records of Rosen’s parents. The FBI also got a warrant to search Rosen's emails from 2010. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obama-whose-administration-prosecuted-and-spied-on-reporters-claims-trump-is-very-bad-for-criticizing-newsrooms Oopsy! You didn't think I meant Trump, did you?
Can the Queen of UK be prosecuted in UK courts?
The last time a Monarch was accused of a crime in the UK it was King George(5) in 1911 for bigamy. However, the Lord Chief Justice decided that the King couldn’t be ordered to provide evidence and the case ended right there.The accuser was Edward Mylius, a publisher who in 1911 accused the King of bigamy in his report which raised the question about the status of the Queen and the legitimacy of their children. The King was prepared to go to the court to give evidence to disapprove the allegation, however the attorney-general, advised the king that it would be unconstitutional for him to give evidence in his own court.Well basically The Queen is above the law as criminal law is inacpplicable as the Sovereign law is in effect, which is a customary principle.Her Majesty, being the Queen enjoys sovereign immunity so she can’t be questioned as part of a criminal investigation, she is not required to give police interviews and she also can’t be cross examined.But there is a way to get through The Queens impenetrable immunity from prosecution: ParliamentThe parliament can legislate and so change a customary rule, even one as old as a sovereign immunity. However, it might be hard to persuade The Queen to give assent to the bill that allows herself to be prosecuted.Lawfully prosecuting the Queen would be difficult but not entirely impossible. In order to do it legally, you first need to successfully complete a comprehensive political revolution, that would have the backing of the people. According to the Crown Proceeding Act of 1947 the Crown can be sued but that means you can file charges against Her Majesty’s Government but not Her Majesty herself.So to answer you question, she can’t be prosecuted but she will lose the support and approval of the people which would affect the future of the monarchy and its relationship with its people.Source/credit: What would happen if the Queen went on a crime spree? - Legal Cheek
Define the difference between Freedom of Speech and Sedition?
Sedition is a term of law to refer to covert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often included subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. Sounds a lot like what Ms. Nancy did going to Syria, don't it! Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. I would say that it is OK to express your opinion as your opinion but not to try and present it as fact in order to promote civil unrest and violence.
Who truly can declare war? The president or congress?
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress and the president different responsibilities in waging wars, but there have long been disputes about where one’s war powers begin and the other’s ends. The U.S. Constitution empowers the president to wage wars as commander-in-chief while Congress has the power to declare wars and fund them. A number of experts believe presidents have demonstrated greater power to wage wars since the end of World War II. “The president has been commander-in-chief since 1789, but this notion that they can go to war whenever they want, and [ignore] Congress, that’s a post-World War II attitude.” The main power of Congress is in controlling war funding, not deciding troop deployments or the plan to surge forces in Baghdad, ect. Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President. In 1973, an irate Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to President Lyndon Johnson and President Richard Nixon's prosecution of the war in Vietnam without a congressional declaration. Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action.
Anybody have any info on the Espionage and Sedition Acts of WWI?
WWI, unlike WWII was not a war everyone supported. The country was deeply divided between isolationism and helping Europe out. To deal with dissent, the United States passed the Espionage and Sedition Act. The Espionage Act allowed the government to open mail to prevent anti-war propoganda from spreading. The Sedition Act allowed for the arrest ofcitizens who criticized/ undermined the war effort and the government. Schank vs US stated that freedom of speech would not be allowed if there was a clear and present danger. PICK ME PICK ME! unlike the others i didn't copy off the internet! pleeeeeease.