No it is sure is semantics. If it does not fall within the strict limits and framework as clearly mandated in the Constitution it is illegitimate and therefore seditious as it has no legal authority. There is no wiggle room. It usually will follow this pattern of behavior which we have seen being instigated even by those elected in the government who engage in these behaviors:
Seditious” outside the context of the Constitution generally refers to behavior or speech that incites rebellion or unrest against the government, or that promotes violence or the overthrow of the established order, though it’s important to note that the term’s legal meaning and application can vary.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
General Definition:
“Seditious” typically describes actions or words that are intended to encourage or promote rebellion, disorder, or the overthrow of a government.
Examples:
This can include inciting violence, advocating for the overthrow of the government, or spreading propaganda that undermines public trust in the government or its institutions.
Legal Context:
While the term “seditious” is often used in a general sense, it also has a specific legal meaning, particularly in relation to laws against sedition or seditious conspiracy.
Seditious Conspiracy:
In the United States, seditious conspiracy is a federal crime defined as an agreement by two or more people to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof.
First Amendment:
It’s important to note that while seditious speech is not protected under the First Amendment, the government must still prove that the speech is intended to incite imminent lawless action and is likely to do so.
Historical Context:
The concept of sedition and seditious libel has a long history, with laws against such activities being used to suppress dissent and maintain political power.
Examples of Historical Sedition Laws:
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, for example, were enacted to suppress criticism of the Federalist government, and the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 were used to suppress dissent during World War I.
Modern Relevance:
While the term “sedition” is often associated with historical events, it remains relevant in contemporary discussions about political unrest, extremism, and the potential for violence.
"...or spreading propaganda that undermines public trust in the government or its institutions."
You do realize that was exactly what Democrats and the media were saying about those of us who opposed their agenda during the Obama and Biden administrations, right? The entire "Deep State" narrative that has been pushed by Trump supporters and conservatives rightfully "undermines public trust in government and its institutions" because they deserved to have that trust undermined.
You exemplify a very dangerous mindset. You support dissent and criticism of the government and ruling party unless it happens to be the people you like, in which case you want it suppressed.
At least in this country, which properly values freedom of speech and assembly, we have the right to denigrate, criticize, and even lie about the government if we don't like it. The only thing our laws prohibit is advocating violence. A so-called shadow cabinet does not equal violence, and is not - and should not be - unlawful.