My contention is that it is legal.
Am I right or wrong?

It may be legal, but it won't happen until everybody that wants to gets together and does it.
I know a lot of people that want to. Just listen to the George sNoory coasties and Alex Jones' conspiracy theorists they are just waiting for the day when everybody is that fed up to actually do something. Right now I think the people feel too few and far between and powerless and the others are complacent sitting in their lounge chair.

Under the Sedition Act of 1918, it would be. While its within one's free speech rights to protest the actions of the government and to advocate change WITHIN the laws of the US government, it would be sedition to advocate or promote a change in the form of the government.

Scott

The Sedition Act of 1918 made it illegal to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war.

Sedition Act of 1918 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The passing of this act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime.

As far as I know it is NOT legal to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government:

I believe SCOTUS has upheld this act on more than one occasion.

My argument for the legality is based on a conceptual distinction between the concepts of "state" and "government."

That is that that the "state" refers to a set of enduring institutions through which power is distributed and its use justified by the constitution and jurisprudence.

That the term "government" refers to a specific group of people who occupy the institutions of the state, and create the laws and ordinances by which the people, themselves included, would be bound.

Therefore it is legal to advocate the over through of the government, but not the state.

Are you planning on testing the Act any time soon to see if you're correct? :)

Haa haa, no, it's a theoretical exercise at this point…but you never know, I can think of a couple of people who need thrown out of office and ran out of town.

I think when the time is right the government will be so much more corrupt than it is and then legal or not...

Not only that but the government already isn't doing their 'by the people, for the people, side of the deal so...

DC,

While it is completely legal to advocate a change IN government, it is ILLEGAL under current treason laws to advocate for an overthrow OF government. It falls under the category of "sedition", and during a time of war, a case can be made for it being a capital crime.

Besides, there are these little things called elections that come around every couple of years that give us the power to "overthrow" any US government we don't like. As long as that is the case, there really is no need for overthrowing the government. The only time that anyone needs to overthrow a government is if that government doesn't give up its seat when voted out of office, or else refuses to allow such a vote to take place.

BTW, with regard to your definitions of "state" and "government" above, I don't believe that the courts have ever upheld such a distinction. You seem to be saying that the state is a permamnent, enduring entity, and the government is merely the caretaker of the political power of that state, and thus a temporary entity. The problem with that distinction is that "government" is not temporary. Elected officials are temporary. But elected officials are not the totality of government... in fact, they are, by and large, a very limited part of overall government.

Everything from police to military, to mail service, to water works, to road, bridges, tunnels and highways are run by "government" agencies. These agencies are permanent fixtures, regardless of who is in office. For all intents and purposes, these agencies are the "state". A REAL overthrowing of the government would mean elimination or co-opting of these agencies... which means that overthrowing the government and overthrowing the state are the same thing for all intents and purposes. There can be no distinction.

While I absolutely hated the movie, a film called "The Postman" (Kevin Costner, Warner Bros. 1997) kind of makes the point that as long as the agencies of the US Government are still in effect, the state will not fall. As long as there is a government in place, the people will rally around that government and fight for the nation. The point is that as long as those agencies continue to work, even inefficiently, the people have something to rally around. However, if the government as a whole falls, including all the various agencies of government, then there will be nothing to left fight for.

The agencies of the government are the state and vice versa. There is no distinction.

Elliot

Excellent, Elliot, excellent.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advise. From research it seems that speech suggesting the overthrow or dismantling of a government or state is legal as long as the advocacy or speech does not pose an imminent threat or a clear and present danger.

Yates v. United States
Brandenburg v. Ohio