Video Still: Rioters break into the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2020.
Column By Mike Bibb
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
18 USC 2383: Rebellion or insurrection
What’s an insurrection?
Seems like a reasonable question that should have been decided long ago. Certainly, wise and experienced lawyers and judges should know.
We hear it often as if it’s a regularly occurring phenomenon. Yet, courts in different states can’t agree.
For example, the Supreme Court of Colorado recently ruled in a 4-3 decision that Donald Trump can’t be on their state’s 2024 election ballot because they believe him to be an “insurrectionist.”
A few days later, Michigan’s Supreme Court refused to hear a similar case, insisting the argument wasn’t presently relevant. As a result, Trump remains on the Michigan ballot.
In November, Minnesota’s Supreme Court also ruled Trump would be on the ballot.
Then, Maine’s Sec. of State said she has single-handedly barred Trump from being on her state’s ballot next year.
What do all these states have in common? Each of these decisions was determined by Democrat officials who’ve decided they have the authority to decide who their electors can vote for without having an election to decide the issue.
They all cite the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 “insurrection” clause as justification for kicking Trump off the ballot.
Ironically, every one of them believes Trump is a wannabe dictator – apparently, oblivious to their dictator-like behavior.
What accounts for the differences in opinion? Isn’t an insurrection an insurrection, no matter which state it occurs in?
Why would the Colorado court say something entirely different than Michigan or Minnesota?
No idea, since I can’t find any evidence of Trump – or, any other president — ever being indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of insurrection.
Apparently, a person’s presumed innocence doesn’t much matter in Colorado or Maine. Particularly, if your name is Trump.
Equally odd no jury, or proof, is necessary to decide if an accused insurrectionist is an insurrectionist.
Just the assumption of some state bureaucrat, employee, or judge.
Even murder trials require witnesses, evidence, and testimony when deciding the fate of an accused.
Guess, when determining if millions of voters can vote for a specific candidate, the mere opinion of a government official is all that is necessary.
Consequently, are Colorado’s judges, and Maine’s Sec. of State, making up stuff in hopes of keeping Trump’s name off the ballot?
That’s what it looks like. This is kind of weird since they are sworn to uphold the law and interpret and render factual and unbiased decisions.
Regardless, of their personal and political opinions, or party affiliations.
United States Code, 18 USC 2383, lists the various acts of Rebellion and Insurrection, and the punishment for it (see above). However, an individual must first be tried and convicted of the crime before the fines, penalties, and punishments are imposed.
Adding to the confusion, why would Colorado’s judges rely on an old Civil War-era Constitutional Amendment as a basis for their decision on an event that happened a couple of years ago?
Jan. 6, 2021, was an unarmed civil protest in Washington, D.C. — not the confusion, mayhem, and slaughter at the battle of Gettysburg, July 1-3, 1863.
Nor, the violence, looting, and costly destruction of the George Floyd and Black Lives Matter riots during the summer of 2020.
The 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 of the U.S. Constitution mentions “insurrection,” “rebellion” and “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” but doesn’t define the terms. Presumably, leaving that task to the courts.
However, a casual observation of Trump’s activities on Jan. 6, 2021, did not indicate he was involved in insurrection, rebellion, or lending aid to some imaginary enemy.
He certainly didn’t harm or shoot anyone. That deed was done by a Capitol Hill Police Officer when he intentionally shot and killed an unarmed woman.
The only death recorded that day, regardless of how the media spun it.
Unbelievably, the officer later received a commendation for his heroic action.
There was pushing, scrapes, and bruises going on within the crowd, and tempers were on edge, but no buildings were set afire or severely damaged.
Shortly afterward, government business resumed. To equate the disturbance to the burning of the White House by the British in 1814 is an absurdity, promoted by a moronic press and clueless talking heads.
Furthermore, if the protesters were aggressive and out of control, why did Capitol Police willfully open the barriers and escort people into the building?
Trump didn’t have anything to do with that.
After reviewing the suspicious decisions of four of Colorado’s Supreme Court’s seven justices, it’s obvious their ruling was not unanimous. A single consenting judge was the difference between the success — or failure — of the motion.
Another indication maybe four of the seven judges were more partial to removing Trump from the ballot, than risking him winning an election by voters’ approval.
Finally, the four judges must have realized their decisions would be immediately challenged. Their 14th Amendment argument was so frail as to defy logic. As was their presumed authority to believe they could change Federal election laws by trampling upon the Constitutional rights of a private citizen.
In Maine’s case, the Sec. of State acted on her own. Talk about absolute ignorant arrogance and willful disregard of the law! She should be instantly impeached and removed from office by Maine’s state legislature. Followed by a Grand Jury indictment for being “Stupid Beyond Rehabilitation.”
These various authorities are rapidly spinning out of control. Further indication the U.S. Supreme Court needs to intervene and put a stop to the silliness. Otherwise, what’s the purpose of having elections if certain candidates are not allowed to participate because of the prejudiced nature of certain state officials?
Realizing Joe Biden is mentally and physically exhausted, Democrats have tried just about every trick in the book to hinder and prevent Trump from running again. A steady seven-year onslaught of investigations, impeachments, indictments, lawsuits, arrests, gag orders, accusations, false claims, home invasions – the list continues to grow.
They’re even trying to unlawfully remove his name from the ballot without due process. How desperate, and pathetic, can they get?
Apparently, there’s no end to their misguided chicaneries – and they don’t seem to care.
For the next 10-11 months it will be an all-out assault on Donald J. Trump via political rivals, media, talk shows, Hollywood, academia, Department of Justice, open borders crowd, climate change activists, amnesty supporters, and anyone else who believes Trump is the new Hitler.
Fortunately, there’s still a sizable portion of the population who haven’t succumbed to their maniacal hysteria.
That’s what drives Democrats nuts – the fact fewer people are swallowing their line of fecal matter.
After a while, the Left’s constant anti-Trump bellowing is taken as seriously as Chicken Little’s “The sky is falling” outbursts.
