The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
January 6, 2021 Was Not an Insurrection
Noscitur a sociis.
Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the leading originalists and textualists of the modern era ended his career by publishing with Bryan A. Garner a 2012 treatise Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. In his treatise, Scalia urges lawyers to go back to using the canons of interpretation, which the legal realists sarcastically scorned. As it happens, there is a canon of interpretation, which is very relevant to what the word "insurrection" means in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which Ilya Somin's post today conveniently overlooks: noscitur a sociis -- The meaning of an unclear or ambiguous word in a legal text should be determine by considering the words with which it is associated in context.
The word "insurrection" in Section 3 appears as part of the phrase "insurrection or rebellion" in a text that had as a paradigmatic example the U.S. Civil War in which 620,000 Americans at a minimum died and possibly as many as 850,000 according to more modern estimates. This amounts to about 2.5% of the population, which today would be 7 million people.
In contrast 5 people died in the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol. This difference in scale is enormous! More people died in the 1960's race riots and no-one called them an insurrection. Thirty-four people, for example died in the Watts Los Angelos riot in 1965 and more than a thousand were injured.
If the January 6th riot was an insurrection are Black Lives Matters protests also insurrections with the result that those who participate in such protests cannot run for political office?
Webster's 1828 Dictionary online defines "rebellion" as being "An open and avowed renunciation of the government to which one owes allegiance; or the taking of arms traitorously to resist the authority of lawful government; revolt." The word "insurrection" draws its meaning in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment from the word "rebellion", with which it is associated.
Far from it being a rebellion, the January 6th riot was a two and one-half hour event in the Capitol City of the third most populous country in the world. No one came to the riot with guns even though guns are widely available in this country. When former President Trump asked them to leave, they left. No-one from then on raised so much as a question over whether President would leave office peacefully, which he did by flying to Florida on the morning of January 20, 2021.
Like Ilya, I am appalled by Trump's behavior on January 6, 2021, and I will not vote for him under any circumstances because of it. But, setting the precedent of using the Supreme Court of the United States to settle political questions and presidential elections by keeping people off the ballot is very dangerous. Two wrongs do not make a right. The wrong that Trump committed on January 6, 2021 should not be used to perpetrate the additional wrong of keeping Trump off the ballot in 2024.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Few among Calabresi's fellow travelers rejected the "insurrection" label when applied to riots during the 2020 protests, though they recoil from it being accurately applied the the Republican riot at the Capitol.
None of these "not an insurrection" folks are ever willing to answer this question: what's the difference between a riot and an insurrection?
"What's the difference between a riot and an insurrection?"
Time...scale...weapons....organization....
A riot is a protest that gets violent. It typically isn't organized violence, and usually lasts a day or less. Usually the police are used to end the riot, or it ends on its own. It's typically located around a city area. It's typically characterized by a type of anarchy. There's often no peaceful area within the area controlled by the riot. Weapons are improvised at best. There are extreme examples (For example the 1992 LA riots)
An insurrection or rebellion on the other hand is an organized violent undertaking against the authority of the government in a larger geographic area, typically over the course of weeks to years. It typically requires the armed forces to come in and put down the rebellion...mere police aren't enough. Weapons are typically organized among the insurrectionees. A potential example is the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-1794
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
The intellectually dishonest Calabresi previously wrote in the New York Times that Trump is unqualified to hold office, in part because of Jan 6 "insurrection". He wrote "Mr. Trump’s most egregious impeachable offenses are inciting a violent insurrection against his own vice president, the Senate and the House of Representatives..." and "Mr. Trump’s incitement of an insurrection qualifies, without question, as an impeachable offense." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/13/opinion/trump-impeachment-bipartisan.html The context was an article supporting the second impeachment of Trump, arguing Trump should be disqualified again. Sure, 14th amendment is a different procedure, but it is just as un-democratic to restrict a president from serving again by impeachment without the voters deciding as it is for the Supreme Court (with 3/8 being appointed by Trump) to keep him off the ballot.
Other quotes in that article: "It is both appropriate and necessary to bar Mr. Trump from the White House even if, as incredible as it may seem, some voters might wish to vote for him again.
We should not allow that to happen. He tried to steal the election and incited a mob to abet his wrongdoing. He is a danger to the nation and must be removed immediately and disqualified from ever holding public office again."
"Removing from power at once a president who has incited an attack on his own government certainly qualifies as an emergency situation."
What changed? Or is it just the typical far right hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, and self contradictions?
Oh, please! Are old men no longer allowed to "grow"?
Oh please! Reversing your moral code, which presumably you have by the time you're an old man, is not the same as growth.
A riot is a violent mob. An insurrection/coup attempts to overthrow the government, which was exactly what Trump was trying to do.
Exactly. The J6 mob is also not trying to hold subsequent federal office; Trump is.
Insurrectionists with guns were arrested at the insurrection.
The sitting President's support distinguishes the insurrection on January 6th from all the riots so frequently named in these comments and now by Calabrisi.
How does his support distinguish this?
Because the power still commanded by the President makes it possible, however unlikely, that the execution of the law would be blocked; without the President's support, it would certainly have been quelled. For a specific example, on January 5th, Trump and his appointees forbade the DC National Guard from responding to civil disturbances without explicit advance approval.
Weren't the guns in their vehicles -- not on them? Big difference!
No, as related in other comments here; e.g.,
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/06/january-6-2021-was-not-an-insurrection/?comments=true#comment-10388078
"not on them"
Which "them" are you talking about? The vast majority of J6 criminals that weren't detained that day? How would anyone know if they were or weren't carrying guns?
OK OK, I admit that Trump might be being honest in this particular instance.
And just in case someone bleats that it's an oversight, or some other lame-ass excuse:
It's like he's not even bothering to hide the wanna-be authoritarianism at this point.
Hey, if there's truly no response after a reasonable time, you might be on to something.
But you should know better than to fall for the ever-more-common "sent email for comment at 3:53 on a Saturday; published at 4:05" gamesmanship.
I'm sure the campaign will quickly correct the oversight.
Also, I have a bridge in New York City you might be interested in purchasing.
Wouldn't surprise me, actually. Since the media had to go digging for it, it's not as though anyone was giving it any particular attention.
See we shall.
So any facts you don't like are ones "the media had to go digging for"?
Do you think facts you like are magically transmitted direct to the printing press / web page / FOX chyron?
Nah, more like it's not as though it was so glaring an omission that people involved went yelping to the media about it, instead of the media going hunting for it.
And see the linked article in my reply to Randal below -- looks like the only Presidential candidates that signed it were Biden and DeSantis. If that's correct, it's really starting to look like a fairly sad effort to amp up the low-information contingent.
The more I think about this, the sillier it gets. If you really, truly in your heart of hearts believe that Trump is keeping his options open to overthrow the government, do you really, truly in your heart of hearts believe that the state of Illinois waving around a signed piece of paper and wailing "BUT YOU PROMISED NOT TO" would make one whit of difference?
That's not why it matters.
It's an additional signal of contempt by Trump for the norms of American patriotic politics. He doesn't think politicians should be constrained by anything, even symbolic gestures. He's an authoritarian through and through.
Snapshot that frothy-froth for when we're graced with a complete list of which candidates -- of any party -- did and did not sign the form. This careful dancing does not bode well for you:
Oh I agree with you it probably doesn't matter at all actually. Just that if, on the off chance that Trump is up to something, it's not that he's somehow trying to avoid some sort of contractual liability with Illinois. It'd be that he's trying to make some anti-American-establishment statement. But more likely it's nothing at all.
Fifth Amendment???
As always, what the fuck are you talking about? The fifth amendment is not implicated by a pledge that you won't do something.
Life of Brian, difference to whom? An oath to support a sovereign, broken, has traditionally been prosecuted as high treason. It is past time this nation renewed the custom of punishing oath breaking. The Constitution already requires the oaths. There is nothing incongruous about an implication of enforcement.
This isn't that kind of oath.
This is a symbolic oath. Trump just doesn't want to be sending that kind of signal right now. The signal that he's going to roll over and play by the rules...
Obviously Trump's oath is worthless and obviously he'll do Jan 6th redux when the chance arises; he could either lie making the oath or show his contempt for even forms of respecting democracy. He seems to have chosen the latter.
I doubt he'll get another chance.
First, there aren't enough gape-jawed, backwater bigots left in America to position Trump for a realistic chance at even another Electoral College trick shot. Too many old, religious, bigoted clingers are dying off every day to keep that clinger electoral coalition afloat.
Second, he won't be able to influence the government response. Security measures would be overwhelming and I doubt any insurrectionists would be given more than one chance -- if that -- to withdraw before being put down like rabid dogs.
Third, he might be in a prison cell, or confined to a few rooms with an ankle bracelet, with limited communications access.
Fourth, Trump's followers have never stuck with or accomplished much of anything worthwhile in life; there is no apparently reason to expect that to change. They are gullible, ignorant, delusional, low-character losers. An insurrection would be beyond their grasp.
Trump had one shot at insurrection. He blew it.
If the January 6th riot was an insurrection are Black Lives Matters protests also insurrections with the result that those who participate in such protests cannot run for political office?
The riots would be (under this expanded definition), not the peaceful protests.
Agreed. The assertion that peaceful protests necessarily overlap with "insurrection" seems to be a bridge too far.
They are making no such distinction for J6 participants, so no, they are all insurrectionists.
One more time, and he'll appear!
Nocturnal emissions
Ha ha I came here to make almost the exact same comment.
This is absurd. And I say that as someone who agrees with you that January 6th was not an insurrection. But no one has ever claimed that the definition of "insurrection" in any way relies on the number of people who died during some particular event. Furthermore, the definition of insurrection is anything but ambiguous.
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
"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."
How is that ambiguous?
And to offer a counter-definition of insurrection that relies entirely on a body count is just bizarre.
Um... [gingerly raises hand] because the sentence you quote just uses the word "insurrection" and doesn't define it at all?
About to say that …
w.
Where is the ambiguity in § 2383, LoB? Please specify what alternative constructions of the term "insurrection" are plausible.
In a criminal prosecution under this statute, terms which have not been defined by Congress in the statute are typically defined by the trial judge in instructions to the jury. In the event of an actual ambiguity, that should be resolved in the accused’s favor.
Alternative? What construction of "insurrection" do you see in 2383?
Unclear on what "ambiguity" means, Lob? Why am I unsurprised?
I understand you’re still licking your wounds from the whole bill vs. statute debacle from the other day, but IMO you’re working a bit too hard to barge into this particular thread and try to manufacture a fake dispute.
OP said the statute defines “insurrection”; it clearly does not. Feel free to start a new thread with whatever Very Clever Point you’re desperately trying to scrape up.
LoB, you posited upthread that because 18 U.S.C. § 2382 "just uses the word 'insurrection' and doesn’t define it at all", that renders the statute ambiguous.
Ambiguity at a minimum presupposes the existence of more than one plausible construction of the text, which constructions are inconsistent with one another. Breadth and ambiguity are distinct concepts.
Well, he thinks that you can present legal arguments with cites and precedent, but don't know the difference between a bill and a statute. So simple ideas seem to escape him, so not understanding "ambiguous" seems to be on-brand for him.
It's sadly unsurprising that the only way you feel like you can win an argument is to crop-quote my response and add words to twist it.
Nobody outside your hot head was discussing whether the overall statute is ambiguous. OP asked how the definition of "insurrection" in the statute could be ambiguous -- I said because there is no definition in the statute at all.
Very uncomplicated unless you're seeking complication.
Run along now.
This is how you know LoB has lost the argument.
Insults and high-handed 'we're done talking.'
Read the thread, ya lazy position playing bum. NG wasn't "talking" and there was no "argument" -- he was spoiling for a fight and had to concoct one by rewriting what I said.
He's not once addressed what I actually said, because there's nothing there to dispute.
Nothing wrong with that.
Congress can use words that are in the dictionary to describe crimes.
The problem is they aren't charging people with insurrection so the courts can apply the facts to the charge and set a standard to to be vetted through the appeals process.
It doesn't seem like they are confident in the outcome.
How many right-wing write-offs have been charged with and convicted of seditious conspiracy?
How many worthless clingers are in prison cells today consequent to engaging in seditious conspiracy?
It was an insurrection against at least the Constitution itself, on the part of at least one individual, Donald Trump.
His behavior qualifies as an insurrection, because he sought to maintain power beyond the prescribed four year term of his office through means contrary to those set forth in the Constitution, simultaneously to deny the lawful and Constitutionally sanctioned ascension of another into the office of President.
In my view, such behavior qualifies as a clear uprising against the foundation of our government, whether or not violence was involved (it was, on the part of others) and whether or not other people were involved (they were).
So you're advocating for Al Gore and Hillary Clinton to be locked up? How about all those that "invaded" the Capitol on Trump's inauguration or the Kavanaugh hearings? No? Gee, partisan hackery who'd have seen that coming from the commie crowd.
"So you’re advocating for Al Gore and Hillary Clinton to be locked up?"
Do you really think there's no difference between following legal processes on one hand and creating slates of false electors (or any of the various other extrajudicial efforts Trump used to prevent the legitimately elected President from taking office) on the other?
"How about all those that “invaded” the Capitol on Trump’s inauguration"
Leaving aside your ridiculous overstating of the situation, are you claiming that being one place while the relevant activities are going on in a completely different location is relevant?
The sad thing is, you probably do. You're that blindly partisan. Are you going to tell us about how CHAZ/CHOP was an insurrection next?
Who has been convicted of violating 18 USC 2383?
A criminal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 carries criminal penalties, which include being declared incapable of holding any office under the United States. Disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 is a civil disability. As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the other.
Application of § 2383 is universal, not restricted to persons who have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution.
Disability under § 3 can be removed by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress. Disqualification under § 2383, imposed by an Article III judge, cannot be so removed.
Disqualification under § 2383 applies only to any office under the United States. Disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 applies to both federal state offices.
If disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 imposes a criminal punishment, it could not have been applied ex post facto to ex-Confederates for acts of rebellion or insurrection occurring prior to 1868. That would have defeated the purpose of that section of the amendment.
I have raised each of these points repeatedly on these comment threads, and no one in the Trump cult has offered any cogent response.
I gots three responses.
1. Congress isn't always that bright, and they have other interests than to exactly match the Constitution.
2. Until the Thorton decision, in 1995, it wasn't at all established that Congress or the legislatures couldn't add additional qualifications for holding office.
3. Under Section 5 Congress decides whether a civil penalty or criminal penalty is needed, once they decide, that's the standard. Congress set 2383 as the standard in 1948. They could have set one standard during reconstruction, and another under post-reconstruction, or just left it to martial law authorities, and each house of Congress which it appears they did during reconstruction.
It looks like you're betting it all on the Section 5 argument.
I can see how that might appeal to the Supreme Court.
Kazinski, disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 is not, never was, and cannot be, a criminal penalty. If it were, it could not constitutionally have been applied ex post facto to punish former confederates for their conduct during the Civil War.
Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 (1798), was settled law when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.
Well, that's not correct. As Baude pointed out in his article, A14 supersedes earlier provisions of the constitution to the extent they're in conflict. I agree that A14S3 isn't a criminal penalty, but if it were, the ex post facto ban would simply give way if necessary.
It wasn’t an insurrection.
It was a show of force, attempting to overthrow a duly elected government.
Totally different.
The "duly elected government" hadn't been inaugurated yet. The claim is that the president attempted to overthrow himself. Clown shoes.
So attempting to silence (or worse) Vice President Pence doesn't count as an attempt to overthrow the government in your book?
When someone tries to remain head of state beyond when they are legally allowed to, is called and auto-coup. It is still a coup, but against an incoming government.
Prof Calebresi says, comparing to the massive casualties of the Civil War:
But stop right there. Prof Somin compared Jan. 6 to the certainly-(unless you're a Nazi apologist?)-an-insurrection Beer Hall Putsch. That insurrection claimed 21 lives (and was also a failure like Trump's insurrection). But disregarding the offered comparison and pointing solely to Civil War casualties as the only other "insurrection" metric disingenuously misrepresents Prof Somin's argument.
First: C'mon, you'd get totally called out if your tried to make that argument before a judge. You might lose your credibility, and maybe even the case right there, if you ignored that. Shame on you.
Second: Where in the Constitution is "scale" mentioned? Do rights and disabilities exist as a fundamental creation of the Constitution, where one violation is enough? Or do they only exist when enough people are killed? The Civil War killed 620,000 military deaths (your lower estimate). Would killing only 1/100th that amount - a mere 6,200 people, after all! - be "trivial in comparison"? Would 1/1000th qualify - it can't possibly be an insurrection if fewer than 620 people are killed? Maybe 1/10,000th? Surely it's inconsequential if only 62 people are killed trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power?
Is this one big Socratic method attempt to get die-hard Trump partisans to self-realize how lame their arguments are?
Four people died at the Capitol that day. Not five.
Ashley Babbitt was shot by an LEO (and suddenly democrats were all for police shooting suspects);
Kevin Greeson, died of natural causes from cardiovascular disease;
Benjamin Phillips, died of natural causes from cardiovascular disease;
Roseanne Boyland, was trampled as people were trying to escape the pepper spray and then beaten by police officers. (Some say she died of acute amphetamine poisoning, but her family says she no longer used drugs and had been clean for some time). From the video I saw at the time I suspect the baton beating by the officer probably contributed to her death.
That was it. An officer died from a series of strokes the following day but was not hit with a fire extinguisher as insisted by the media and did not die that day.
None of the above were murdered by the protesters. So to say "In contrast 5 people died in the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol" is to insinuate they were deliberately killed by the protesters and is being a bit disingenuous.
Exactly. The rioters didn't kill even one person.
Also, what kind of an "insurrection" includes old ladies, middle-aged overweight out of shape guys, and a Buffalo Shaman who was let in by the guards?
w.
“Stop the ste”
The last words of Ashtray Babbitt that will inspire a new generation of patriots to take back their country! Hey, I wonder what “ste” means??
CindyF bleated like the sheep she is:
Take it up with Prof Calabresi's OP, that I accurately quoted.
Do you somehow imagine that pedantry about an accurate quote means that the person making the correct quote is "disingenuous"?
FFS, that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. You're literally arguing that Prof Calabresi is wrong. Not that I'm wrong.
Can I have some of your no-doubt excellent hallucinogens?
DC police officer Jeffrey L. Smith, whose death was in the line of duty after defending the Capitol from insurrectionists who attacked him, including a thrown metal pole that struck him in the face.
Washington, D.C. Police and Firefighters' Retirement and Relief Board: "We find that Officer Smith sustained a personal injury on January 6, 2021, while performing his duties and that his injury was the sole and direct cause of his death."
"Washington, D.C. Police and Firefighters’ Retirement and Relief Board"
What are their medical qualifications? Are they practicing licensed MEs or coroners?
It's not unusual for authorized people to make decisions without personal expertise in various areas; experts are consulted. The quotation I gave was preceded by "Based on evidence submitted by the petitioner and the Department", so the question is what evidence did that comprise, and what expertise was applied to it. One would expect a "Retirement and Relief Board" to take seriously its responsibility to determine who died in the line of duty, but I'm not so ghoulish to demand Officer Smith's medical records.
You're free to tell us any info you have. Knock yourself out!
Please follow up with your views on why that info could, would, or should be considered evidence related to your interpretation of events and opinions. Or even just related to reality, as opposed to your political imagination, indignation, and/or outright wankery.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/sealioning-internet-trolling
At least two members of the board are required to be medical doctors.
The officer would have died running on a beach in Bermuda -- it was the blood clots that killed him. He should have been on Cumidin.
.
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Not Ashlii Babbitt. Not anymore.
Ashley Babbitt got what she -- and plenty of her fellow insurrectionsts -- deserved. May her memory be a lesson to deplorable clingers.
You haven't heard of the "de minimus" exception to the Constitution?
There is a good reason that in something else Justice Scalia wrote, namely his concurrence in the Raich case, he rightfully lambastes Justice Stevens for relying on common dictionary definitions where a clear statutory definition exists, such as we find in 18 USC §2383
You found a definition for insurrection in 18 USC §2383? Wow, send me some of whatever's giving you these amazing hallucinations!
Indeed, but why are you looking to a law passed in 1948 to inform you about the understanding of the term in 1868?
“The modern “rebellion or insurrection” statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2383, traces its roots to the Act of July 17, 1862, also known as the Second Confiscation Act (“1862 Act”), signed into law by President Lincoln during the Civil War. The statute has been modified several times since then, but the elements of the offense have remained fundamentally unchanged: namely, it is a federal crime to “incite[], set[] on foot, assist[], or engage[] in any rebellion or insurrection.” There is scant authority addressing prosecutions under the 1862 Act. The most extensive discussion is found in United States v. Greathouse, an 1863 case in which Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field, sitting as a circuit judge, interpreted the elements of insurrection as they were understood during and before the Civil War. The defendants were convicted under the 1862 Act for“engaging in, and giving aid and comfort to,” rebellion against the United States by procuring and preparing a ship and setting sail to attack United States vessels in the Pacific on behalf of the Confederacy. However, despite its use in Greathouse, due to the federal policy of pardoning Confederates, the insurrection statute was not widely used to prosecute conduct related to the Civil War. While some Confederate leaders, like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, were initially charged with treason against the United States after the war, federal prosecutors ultimately dropped these charges. Presidents Lincoln and Johnson pardoned most Confederates not subject to those indictments en masse in a series of executive actions between 1863 and 1868. Since the Civil War, there have been no reported prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 or its predecessors. The reason is likely simple. Because “rebellion” and “insurrection” are inherently political crimes, prosecutors, like their Civil War-era predecessors, may have chosen, either as a matter of policy or a desire to eschew these politically fraught terms, not to bring these prosecutions. Further, since the Civil War, the number of federal criminal statutes, including those for politically motivated crimes, has significantly increased; prosecutors have more paths to prosecuting the same conduct.”
https://www.justsecurity.org/87236/trump-on-trial-a-model-prosecution-memo-for-federal-election-interference-crimes/ [citations omitted]
"If the January 6th riot was an insurrection are Black Lives Matters protests also insurrections with the result that those who participate in such protests cannot run for political office?"
Precisely. If there's anything worse than claiming that January 6th was an insurrection, it's claiming it was the only insurrection in the last decade.
Sorry, Somin: You don't get to have both: Either we had a dozen or more insurrections while Trump was President, or none.
They're trivially distinguished, even by Steven's preferred definition. Jan 6 meets his definition; the BLM riots do not.
Behold, the magic of ex post definitions!
I don't know what that means. What makes Calabresi's definition an "ex post definition?"
Ah, that's why I misunderstood you. What definition do you think Calabresi provides that meets Jan. 6 but excludes BLM?
A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.
And before you say it, the "autonomous zones" meet this definition (even though they still wouldn't be insurrections against the United States or the Constitution, just against the city or state). But the BLM protests / riots generally do not.
Ah, I searched for your text and see Calabresi provided it in a different post. That explains the disconnect.
Anyway... what's your theory as to why BLM riots weren't "the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state"?
What law were they opposing?
Opposing a law is different from breaking a law. Otherwise all criminals would be seditionists.
They were protesting for policy changes, not opposing the execution of any laws.
Um, ok. Cite?
Huh? Is this just your macro for when you're out of comebacks? The comeback of last resort? Ok...
[1] Obviousness
[2] Common sense
[3] Logic
[4] The dictionary
Politicians voting to repeal laws are now insurrectionists.
Brett sez:
You’re confusing a rhetorical flourish from Prof Calabresi with something Prof Somin didn’t actually say in his 1.6.2024 6:19 PM post. This is remarkably sloppy thinking.
“Protest”, “BLM protest”, “riot”, and “insurrection” are not identical sets. There may be overlap. Heck, for some occurrences, there probably is some overlap. But they are not identical sets, no matter how much you whinge. So your conclusions are … pretty much worthless.
All you’re left with is conflating Prof Calabresi’s leading question with Prof Somin’s recent post in which BLM protests literally aren’t discussed. There’s no “Sorry, Somin” when Somin’s post never discusses “BLM protests” in the first place.
1, 5, or 10 years from now, you want to disqualify from Federal office someone who showed up at a BLM protest on the basis of insurrection? File that Federal case, be my guest! Put up your actual evidence (or STFU and STFD). But until then, claims that "Jan 6 isn't an insurrection unless you admit BLM protests are too" is just your fever-dream imagination.
It's true that Somin has not, that I'm aware of, come out and said that January 6th is the only insurrection he is willing to recognize. He simply proceeds as though there have been no others. He has great urgency about disqualifying Trump, and an utter disinterest in doing anything about other insurrectionists, in even acknowledging that they exist.
So very convenient.
I mean, I'm glad you're honest enough to admit
before venturing into the ridiculous. If ever Prof Somin fails to discuss an alleged BLM insurrectionist who is running for president or other Federal office subject to disqualification under 14.3, then you'll have a valid point. And until such time, bupkis. You're arguing against something Prof Somin hasn't even mentioned.
If that's all you've got, it's kinda pathetic.
Joe Biden has repeatedly expressed support for BLM, as have dozens if not hundreds of Congressmen that are still running for Federal office.
Not to mention supporters of groups like the Women's March, whose protesters violently entered the Capitol and disrupted essential official proceedings multiple times - to the point that the entire Capitol complex was shut down for a day because of Capitol Police fears of continued violence.
I do not remember Somin ever discussing why any of the politicians that openly supported these events should not be banned from holding office. Do you know of any?
Before or after the lawsuits were filed alleging those incidents were disqualifying "insurrections" for the purpose of the 14th Amendment?
Until such lawsuits actually arise, who is going to bother to speculate about their legal basis?
No one came to the riot with guns even though guns are widely available in this country.
You keep telling this easily disproven lie (several insurrectionists were convicted on gun charges). It undermines your credibility completely, especially compared to Ilya. And it's not even particularly important to your point.
Speaking of easily disproven lies, please name the individuals who carried guns in the Capitol on January 6.
Partial list of people who "came to the riot with guns" (Steven's phrase):
Christoper Alberts
Mark Mazza
Harlen Boen
Grant Moore
Samuel Fisher
Mark Ibrahim
...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jan-6-rioter-charged-police-carrying-gun-sentenced-7-years-rcna94940
Well, yeah, and then there's that little inconvenient detail. An "armed insurrection" where nobody even knew there were arms is a profound oxymoron.
They knew there were arms there; people who saw them and photographed them with arms knew about the arms. Of course Life of Brian would try to conflate "arms present" with "exact number of arms present".
A spear is a weapon, as is a flagpole when used to assault someone.
In any case, the insurrectionists had weapons in reserve, and were presumably prepared to use them under some circumstances.
A poorly executed insurrection remains an insurrection.
Fuck off you marxist POS. We aren't talking about your antifa buddies bringing weapons to their "protests"
Ahh the deflection and anger. The sound of of a dude totally winning an argument.
Oh, and spurious accusations of Marxist as well. Such reasoning!
Harlen Boen.
"Police stopped Boen Tuesday evening near an area known as “Freedom Plaza” between the White House and the Capitol...After officers stopped him, they discovered a Glock semi-automatic handgun, a large-capacity magazine, 13 rounds of ammunition and a knife."
January 6th was Wednesday. So they stopped this guy the day before.
Now, that's just the first one I picked at random, but given that you're lying about him Bayes suggests you're lying about the others as well.
Sorry, I didn't do the calendar math. I'm willing to strike that one.
I'm totally willing to go down the list and argue the details if you have further pushback. This is a very poorly researched list, I'll be the first to admit. But some of them were arrested at the insurrection with guns, so we'd really just be arguing over a couple mostly irrelevant edge cases like Harlen.
So it doesn't count because he got caught with the gun the day before? Does that mean he didn't intend to use it the next day?
Thanks for confirming (if ever so weaselly) that nobody carried guns into the Capitol.
So now it just comes down to wordplay on where the "protest" ended and the "riot" began.
Real empire-threatening stuff.
At least one of them did carry their gun into the Capitol, to the extent that makes a difference (it doesn’t).
My sense is that one of us is being weaselly with wordplay and it isn't me.
Huh. Would that be the one of us who just coyly said "at least one of them did" but for some reason did not identify which of the names from your list that might have been?
[In all seriousness, that's news to me if correct -- I know well the hairsplitting "had guns somewhere in DC sometime" contingent you listed, but it's a bit surprising that there wouldn't be coast-to-coast screaming from the housetops if they had actually found a gun inside the Capitol, rather than the careful word games we actually see.]
Nevermind... I read it too quickly the first time. He was charged with carrying a gun in a restricted building... or grounds. Maybe it was just the grounds.
But like I said, who cares? It would've been an armed insurrection even if no one had made it inside the Capitol at all. No one from the Civil War got into the Capitol.
This was in response to "the DEA Agent" prior to your edit, but since you're fuzzy on the facts I'll leave it up:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/drug-enforcement-agent-first-federal-officer-charged-capitol-riot-n1274528
Gawd, really? I know you haven't forgotten that this entire tattered, histrionic tale hinges on people "breaching the Capitol" to "prevent the certification of the vote" etc. etc.
After 3 years of that baloney, what's your sudden new and improved theory for how they were going to do that from outside the building?
Even though they failed to prevent certification, it was still an armed insurrection.
Similarly, had they failed to even breach the Capitol, it still would have been an armed insurrection.
If they hadn't even tried to breach the Capitol and just stood around chanting "Stop the Steal," that would not have been an insurrection... even if it had gotten violent.
Get it? It turns on the purpose.
I get that, just like your "opposing" vs "breaking" tapdance above, you're just giving your opinion without supporting it or even thinking particularly hard about how it would actually play out as an ongoing standard.
Because now you're down to, "if a bunch of people got together outside a building and yelled and threw stuff, and some people in that group went inside, and some people in that group wished a Congressional proceeding would stop, and a handful of people in that group that stood outside were carrying concealed guns that they never drew or even revealed, yup -- armed insurrection!" You're just playing the Sarc "they" game to tie it all together.
I'm hard-pressed to see how that isn't loosey-goosey enough to end up the latest and greatest weaponized lawfare game down the road, unless you're truly thinking there's some sort of "high priests performing sacred rites in the Holy of Holies" theory that you can somehow use to limit your standard to your rendition of the J6 facts. But that seems really shortsighted in my view.
Whereas you have no discernible position whatsoever other than whatever babblescat you can come up with to help Trump.
Yes, there are factual questions to answer. They're not that hard. Are you suggesting that the point of Jan 6 wasn't to "oppose the execution of" the electoral vote count? Or just that it's impossible to know? Either argument is a dumb loser.
Anyway, the district court did an extensive finding of facts and answered all your questions. I assume you haven't even taken the time to read it, preferring instead to spend it here on your patented style of bullshit-based filibuster.
Mark Ibrahim was a DEA agent at the time, and photographed posing at the insurrection with his DEA firearm visible. The charge of lying about this was dismissed for venue, as the FBI agent was in Virginia and Ibrahim in California during the interview where he lied about this.
Alberts carried his gun into the Capitol. Mazza, who attacked police, carried two guns but lost possession of one before 2:45pm which is irresponsible and suggests someone else may have been carrying it.
That there are few known at the insurrection with guns is the result in part of Washington DC gun laws, as some likely participants were already arrested before the insurrection for violating those laws. Caches of weapons were at various distances nearby, including the Proud Boys cache in Virginia instead of DC because of those laws.
What's your basis for this? I can't even find any overwrought media stories claiming that, and the DOJ's detailed timeline doesn't ever place him in the Capitol either.
As I said earlier, if a gun had actually been established to have been inside the Capitol, I'm very comfortable we would have had a raft of stories saying exactly that instead of the cutesy wording (e.g., "people with guns stormed the Capitol") that we actually have.
Alberts does appear mostly to have attacked police on the steps of the Capitol, but he was found guilty of "disorderly conduct in a Capitol building" which would seem to require being in a Capitol building as an element of the crime.
"which would seem to require being in a Capitol building as an element of the crime."
Here is the DOJ's take. I only gave the 'Statement of Facts' and final indictment a quick skim. The indictment is full of 'on the Grounds or Buildings' kind of phrasing. The Statement of Facts only seems to be talking about outdoors.
Yeah, that doesn't get you there. The actual statute for that charge in the Alberts indictment is 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D), which, contrary to the media-friendly name DOJ gave it, includes "any place in the Grounds":
It does appear that Alberts did not enter the Capitol, but enabled others to do so. The disorderly conduct in a Capitol building appears so named because the disruption has to be of something in a Capitol building even if the disruption is carried out outside. Unless Congress decides to hold hearings outside in nice weather....
However, other insurrectionists have admitted having guns inside the Capitol or reported that they saw fellow insurrectionists with guns, so quibbling over specific names is just a dodge.
Ah, so after all that, the red-meat-titled “disorderly conduct in a capitol building” really just means “lawmakers were in a Capitol building and it was noisy outside”? That’s pretty lame.
So your first name ended up being a bust, and in response you just say “well, but there were others” and this time omit the names so those can’t be busted as well? That’s even more lame.
Life of Brian, it is not at all unreasonable to define the area of the insurrection to encompass the entire area of insurrectionary organization. I will leave it to lawyers to say whether that parses legally. History shows it has been interpreted that way in the past.
On that basis, there were undoubtedly hundreds if not thousands of guns carried to the scene by would-be insurrectionists on and before January 6. If you deny that, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the evidence, instead of just lying.
I don’t find Calabresi’s argument particularly compelling, but I concur in the result.
Trump is not an insurrectionist simply because he has not been found guilty of Insurrection as defined by Congress, however loosely:
“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.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)”
If the DOJ thought he violated that statute, and had sufficient evidence I have no doubt they would charge him. They haven’t. Which means that the DOJ also doesn’t believe Trump is an insurrectionist.
If they did indict Trump for insurrection he would be at the most an “alleged insurrectionist” until he was actually convicted.
And I will give the BLM rioters the same presumption of innocence, none of them have been charged or found guilty of insurrection either.
I hope this isn't the grand argument you're saving up for Monday because it sucks.
You've never been able to answer the OJ Simpson rebuttal. OJ Simpson was actually acquitted of murder, but he's still a murderer and was found liable for murder to his victims' families.
Different legal situations require different standards of proof. Criminal convictions require the highest level. A finding that Trump is an insurrectionist for the purposes of 14/3 requires a lower level. It's that simple and obvious.
I'm glad to see you are waiting with bated breath for my "brief", but that's not my actual argument.
By the same token, of course, Trump is an adjudicated rapist. How dare you!
Kazinski, do you have any legal authority whatsoever that a criminal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 is required in order to trigger the civil disability imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3?
I have explained multiple material differences in the two upthread, as I have on numerous occasions before. To reiterate one point, if § 3 imposed a criminal penalty, it could not have been applied ex post facto to former Confederates whose acts of rebellion or insurrection occurred prior to 1868.
Yes.
But I'm not going to give it to you.
You'll have to take my post as it is.
Go tell someone else you are waiting, I don't care.
You have authority, but you are unwilling to disclose it?
Is that as true as everything else you have said?
Classic.
You are Rudy Giuliani, and I want my $5.
He is taking your post as it is. Completely unpersuasive. He was giving you a chance to make it more persuasive. Apparently you cannot.
Something so obvious it need not be said.
And yet here we are...
In contrast 5 people died in the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol.
This bears unpacking. The only reason the protest turned deadly is because the cops shot the protestors-- namely Ashli Babbit. Another person died of an overdose and then three coincidentally died of natural causes within 24 hours. So all the media hubbub about a "deadly riot" is because the cops shot the protestors. They made the mistake of thinking they'd get the same lenient treatment Black Lives Matter does when it burns city blocks to ash, but they were wrong and Babbit paid for that faulty assumption with her life.
Yes, this clearly fails the "one murder" rule, which everyone knows is how we determine whether or not to enforce all other elements of the Constitution.
"The word "insurrection" in Section 3 appears as part of the phrase "insurrection or rebellion" in a text that had as a paradigmatic example the U.S. Civil War in which 620,000 Americans at a minimum died and possibly as many as 850,000 according to more modern estimates."
That establishes an upper bound (for American history anyway). For a lower bound, take a look at the Whiskey Rebellion: 2-3 killed and 170 arrests. Compare that to January 6: 5 deaths and more than 1200 arrests. Seems well within the established range for "insurrection or rebellion" at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment.
You make the "Civil War could be seen as an upper bound, but is not necessarily the lower bound" argument better than I did above. Well played, sir.
This is the real problem with Prof. Calabresi's argument. How does the text as ratified require an "insurrection" to be comparable to the Civil War? They were aware of many other types and examples of insurrections, and could've have specified a particular insurrection, if that was indeed the intent.
You are all absolutely right, of course.
Still, Steven's argument has a certain intuitive appeal and it's something I could imagine Alito, for example, coughing up into a 5-4 or 6-3 opinion, if they can't find a better off-ramp.
heck, the drafters of 14.3 could have said “attempted succession by a state” instead of “insurrection”. And … they didn’t.
This guy is a remarkably poor writer. His mishandling of commas would have kept him off the Northwestern faculty absent affirmative action for token clingers.
When all Artie can think to do is play comma police, it's clear enough the post struck a nerve.
No, it's weirdly bad writing. At least he has an easily identifiable "authorial voice" so we know he's not an AI (which are smarter and better writers).
It's on-the-spectrum writing. At an on-the-spectrum blog. With on-the-spectrum fans.
BTW, your deep cuts of alternative/outtakes of Stones videos (esp Brian Jones and Mick Taylor) are quite excellent and much appreciated by the back of the house staff.
Any requests?
That you abort yourself?
Exactly. The rioters didn't kill even one person.
Also, what kind of an "insurrection" includes old ladies, middle-aged overweight out of shape guys, and a Buffalo Shaman who was let in by the guards … and no guns? In America, no guns?
Get real. It was a demonstration that with lots of help from FBI agents provocateurs turned into a riot.
w.
Use more reliable media. You are misinformed.
Willis whinged:
An insurrection of Trump supporters, apparently. Of course those weren’t the people battling the police lines, as shown on … wait. You do know what a “television” is, right? You can watch “movie pictures”? Maybe even “videos”?
You’re right, I also don’t believe such a big group of 2A fanatics had zero concealed weapons. And there were certainly folks with “quick reaction force” guns stashed nearby. Folks that are serving Federal time for that:
“WASHINGTON (AP) — A member of the Oath Keepers who traveled to Washington before the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol testified Wednesday about a massive cache of weapons the far-right extremist group stashed in a Virginia hotel room.
Taking the stand in the seditious conspiracy case against Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and four associates, Terry Cummings showed jurors an AR-15 firearm and an orange box for ammunition that he contributed to the so-called quick reaction force the Oath Keepers had staged at the hotel outside of Washington in case they needed weapons.
“I had not seen that many weapons in one location since I was in the military,” said Cummings, a veteran who joined the Oath Keepers in Florida in 2020.”
Then use all that video and identify one – just one. Prove it to a court, and blow the who conspiracy wide open. You believe in America, right? You can do it!
Or just keep stroking yourself, then move to Russia. You might like it there. They have propaganda that’s right up your alley.
Why do you hate the United States? Are you a commie?
"Defendants have said as much as well. In video evidence played at his trial, Guy Reffitt of Wylie, Tex., said that as he stood near the front of the mob on the west side of the Capitol, he counted eight firearms carried by five people.
Reffitt said that his count included his .40-caliber pistol and his Texas companion’s .45-caliber handgun, five firearms carried by a couple he met at the Capitol and a .22-caliber weapon carried by a woman who stopped to help him after he was hit with bear spray. Reffitt was found guilty in March of encouraging one of the first surges by the mob to overwhelm police while carrying his semiautomatic handgun in a hip holster.
Of the alleged rioters who approached the Capitol on Jan. 6, four have been charged with taking guns onto the Capitol grounds, and two of those have been convicted. Three other supporters of Donald Trump have been convicted of bringing weapons into D.C. but not to the Capitol."
Willis whined:
"Defendant Carried Loaded Gun Onto Capitol Grounds, Led Charge Against Law Enforcement, Later Sought to Obstruct Justice
WASHINGTON – A Texas man was sentenced today to 87 months in prison on civil disorder, obstruction of justice, and other charges for his actions before, during, and after the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021....
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/texas-man-sentenced-prison-actions-related-capitol-breach
Do you still trust the liars who are claiming all those "2A patriots" had "no guns"? Seriously? Does that even pass a smell test?
Think about why they might be lying to you. Follow the money ....
Ehh.
I'm sympathetic to your argument, but I don't think body count is determinative.
The familiarity of the term "bloodless coup" shows body count isn't determinative of whether there was a coup. And often the intent is to be bloodless, but it's still a coup.
Really the tell is with so many defendents and all the Orwellian surveillance, access to emails, phone records, financial and travel records nobody, out of the hundreds charged for other offenses, has been charged with insurrection, despite it being available to prosecutors to charge.
They probably have everything they need to charge it, that is other than mens rea.
Arguably, Trump cannot form any kind of mens rea. It's the total immunity he craves!
Unfortunately, one which also justifies holding him in a secure mental facility for his own protection.
Bloodless coup would be Hillary clinton and her FBI accomplices. There was nothing there that wasn't much worse at Trump's inauguration, the Kavanaugh confirmation or the BLM assault on the capitol in May 2020.
Would this be the "FBI accomplices" who possibly cost her the election by needlessly issuing a letter indicating that she was under investigation just days before the election?
Does Scalia’s booklet have the definition for the word “state”???
A couple points...
Such a restriction based on 14-3 would of course only affect those who engaged in the BLM riots
Only a tiny percentage of the population has taken such an oath and I strongly suspect that the percentage among BLM rioters was even smaller.
Also, "insurrection" seems to imply an intent to overthrow the government or interfere with it so it can't function in its legally prescribed fashion. However if someone truly believes, however foolishly, that their actions, however misguided, are necessary to force the government to comply with the laws of the US, it's pretty hard to call that an "insurrection" as the intent is to uphold the system of government. If the rioters truly believed that the election was being "stolen", that's hardly an "insurrection" - although that in no way makes them less guilty of other crimes they may commit in the process of the riot such as trespassing, vandalism, assault, trespass etc.
BadLib, none of that applies to Trump, whom your comment strangely overlooks.
There is overwhelming evidence Trump knew he had lost the election, intended to seize power anyway, and organized for months to perfect a plan, mobilize confederates, and execute the plan. He in fact put his plan into effect during the week of January 6, and even kept at it afterwards.
If you doubt that you have not kept up with the publicly available evidence. So turn your attention to the trial. No one who follows the testimony will be in any doubt Trump plotted a coup, and effectuated a violent attempt to make it happen.
I'll give you credit Lathrop, because at least you think Trump should be charged with treason, which is a lot higher bar than insurrection.
The argument from most here is: 'we don't need no stinking trial'.
Yo Kazinski, I agree that Lathrop is often over the top. (It rhymes!)
But can you point me to where Lathrop says "treason" [I'm assuming in the Constitutional sense, rather than the rhetorical usage] in the post you're replying to? Because I'm not seeing "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".
(might be you're referring to some other post, in which case OK sure, but sans context that's between you and him)
Thanks.
Ask Lathrop, not me.
But he has said it many times, just not in this thread.
You are coming in very late in the conversation.
Yup, Zarniwoop, Kazinski has it right. I say treason.
But it is not, "over the top." If you think otherwise, I have to assume you have not read the opinions of Chief Justice Marshall in the Burr treason cases. Burr was acquitted on the basis of treason definitions which I suppose, on the basis of publicly available evidence, would convict Trump. Have a look at Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swarwout, which is one case, not two. See what you think.
I have another comment up on a current thread where I reply to CindyF, and explain a bit more why I think a treason charge for Trump would be wiser than what the Justice Department has done. I forget which thread, but it's one of these back-and-forths about what insurrection is.
The argument from most here is: ‘we don’t need no stinking trial’.
No, the argument is that there was a trial. Because there was.
You are way overestimating Trump's intellect. The guy didn't ever have a campaign staff the first time around. He just spouted off stuff that resonated with many Americans like how screwed up the Federal Govt and elites are. Did he actually have any real solutions? No..
I doubt he even gets the GOP nomination.
This post ignores objective facts. The Trump coup/insurrection was not just Jan 6. It also included the fake electors, pressuring Pence, and trying to get local election officials to declare Trump the winner.
The Republicans want to discuss only Jan 6, because then SCOUTS can ignore everything else and keep Trump on the ballot.
Please stop.
Shit or get off the pot.
Either DOJ charges Trump with insurrection or he didn't do it.
There's a vast space of possibilities between "prosecutors believe they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt" (and therefore charge someone) and "he didn't do it". Without regard to whether a conviction is needed for Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to apply (which you claim but will not supply evidence for), that's not how the legal process works.
Shit or get off the pot
========
I’m not going to give it to you.
You’ll have to take my post as it is.
Go tell someone else you are waiting, I don’t care.
Kaz spinning so hard he has fallen down.
Fallen down? The guy lives in an off-the-grid hermit shack because he can't abide modern America and all of this damned progress, reason, tolerance, modernity, science, education, and freedom. He's never really quite upright.
Prof ILYA SOMIN advocates to put political opponents into jails. He is nothing but a absolute NAZI.
Does he? I thought this was about disqualification under the 14th Amendment. (There is nothing in the 14th Amendment about jailing anyone.)
It is puzzling why you feel compelled to demonstrate your ignorance so flagrantly in a place where it is unlikely to go unnoticed (which is not the same as unremarked, by the way).
But enjoy! Some people use the Reason Magazine free speech sandbox for fun and entertainment; others use it like cats do. All are equally welcome here (evidently).
I didn't even realize Prof. Somin was running for office!
i consider the torrent of words about section 3 missing the forest for the trees. section 3 is concerned only with the southern secessioin and civil war. why else the verb tense "shall have", past perfect, i.e. over and one with, or "having previously". the verb tense shall have would mean no disqualification for a person currently participating in an insurrection, if in fact section 3 was concerned with anything other than the people who were in government at the time of secession and declaration of war.
Oooh, a new entry (or two) for stupidest grammatical nitpick to obviate Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.
only a person bereft of intelligent points resorts to claiming the opposition is nitpicking. and besides, why pay attention to words if verb tense isn't important?
Other rules of construction would also suggest that Trump is not subject to Section 3 even if he did engage in insurrection or rebellion.
Section 3 creates three offices that are proscribed from those who previously engaged in insurrection or rebellion: (1) Senator or Representative, (2) elector of the President or Vice-President, and (3) any office, civil or military, under the United States or any State. Those who would use Section 3 to disqualify Trump read the word "office" in category three as including the office of the President, but if this is the construction the word "office" would necessarily include the offices of Senator or Representative thereby rendering the first category mere surplusage.
In addition, basics principles of draftsmanship customarily determine that items in a list like this are set forth in some hierarchy. In other words, if a drafter's intent is to exclude high office holders from some office, the drafter would not ordinarily start the list with the office of dog catcher and work up to the top office, but vice versa. So, why does this list start with "Senator or Representative"? It is notable that there is no mention of the President, nor is there mention of membership on the Supreme Court.
Another insight into the drafter's intent comes from the language of the second category, "elector of the President or Vice-President." Under our electoral system, of course, we do not vote directly for the candidates, but for a slate of electors who are pledged to support the candidate of a particular party. Electors who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion after having formerly vowed allegiance to the US are proscribed by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from being electors, but if an elector is not proscribed by Section 3 the language of that section implies that that the elector would then be pledged to cast a vote for the candidate of his party no matter who that candidate might be. If the intent was to include the offices for which the elector was casing a vote in the constitutional proscription, why mention electors at all?
For the millionth time, Senators and Representatives and Presidential electors were not considered federal office holders, and that is why they were listed separately. The President and Vice-President are so considered, and so it wasn't necessary to list them. That is the most reasonable reading of the text. And it is supported by the record of the debates about the amendment.
It is clearly arguable whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. But the argument that this amendment was intended to exclude the Presidency and Vice-Presidency has no historical backing and makes absolutely no sense.
Hard buy your argument. "Office" and "officeholders" are too generic and there is scant authority for how to interpret the terms. It may be a loose reference to those offices that are filled by appointment rather than by election, but that is just speculation (and of course Senators were appointed to their office at the time).
Your argument also fails to address why category #2 was included. For the second time, if Section 3's "officeholder" proscription included the offices (President and Vice-President) for which electors cast their votes, it follows that category #2 is completely superfluous.
Senators and representatives are not offices.
You're all missing several facts, which are facts despite Big Media lying about them over and over again.
(1) Trump had, and still does have, valid reasons to believe, and he and his supporters still sincerely believe, that he was cheated in the election of 2020 in multiple ways, including the injection of phony votes by the truckload as in Georgia and Pennsylvania; and the suppression of news such as the Hunter Biden laptop story, which would have changed the outcome. Anyone who accuses Trump of acting in bad faith is a liar.
(2) The January 6th rally, and all his supporters in it, were peaceful. Every single act of violence was committed by police or by FBI provocateurs, hundreds of whom infiltrated the rally for that purpose.
(3) Pelosi was in on that infiltration and deliberately refused National Guard troops to protect against any intrusion, because she wanted to use the riot as an excuse to cheat opposing members of both houses of Congress out of their parliamentary right to refuse to accept the electoral votes, thus throwing the election to the House, voting by states, where Trump would have won. This plan worked.
Thus she is the one who performed an illegal coup d'etat. And thus Biden and his administration continue to be nothing but treasonous usurpers.
All three of those "facts" are false.
1. No truckloads of phony votes anywhere; the Hunter Biden laptop story was not suppressed.
2. Staunch supporters of Trump have been convicted of violent acts.
3. Pelosi was not offered National Guard support and did not have the authority to refuse it. Congress was not going to reject any of the electors from any state, which is why Trump and his supporters wanted an insurrection.
The short-lived Soviet Republic of Bavaria resulted in at least 1K deaths..and it was an insurrection by Bolsheviks armed and organized by folks like Toller and Levine. Now these guys and their fellow bolshies knew how to mount an insurrection. Problem was the German people knew who they really were and didn't just put them in jail but executed them.