It depends a lot on how you define “their”. In both those cases you could also argue that the president was still establishing the supremacy of a democratically

It depends a lot on how you define “their”. In both those cases you could also argue that the president was still establishing the supremacy of a democratically elected republican government as the process for achieving change rather than perpetual revolution. It’s different then having elected officials undermined by permanent bureaucracies. I’m not defending the sedition act, but it’s quite important that it was implemented during a quasi-war and was still barely passed. There’s also a reason that two hundred years later it’s constantly held up as a paragon of bad law and there’s no way it would pass judicial review at any point since then (it didn’t at the time either, because it expired 2 years after it was passed and before judicial review was established).