The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The January 6th Riot Was Not Like the Civil War
A Response to Ilya Somin
Ilya Somin has responded to my post yesterday by denying that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to Insurrections and Rebellions that are akin to the Civil War. He suggests it would have applied to Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion had Section Three been in the Constitution when those rebellions occurred.
Yale Law Professor Jed Rubenfeld has written wisely that all constitutional clauses are written with a paradigmatic wrong that is meant to be righted. The Fourth Amendment "right" to be from unreasonable searches and seizures was meant to right the "wrong" of the British colonial general warrants authorizing sweeping searches of colonial warehouses to look for smuggled goods. The Free Exercise Clause was written to prevent the "wrongs" done to Quakers who were executed for heresy by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and the exclusion from the franchise of Catholics and Jews by the British government.
The paradigmatic "wrong" underlying Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment was an insurrection and rebellion during the U.S. Civil War that led to the deaths of between 620,000 and 850,000 Americans. That was 2.5 percent of the population or the equivalent of 7 million people today. Section Three does apply to future "insurrections or rebellions", but they have to be analogous in some way to the Civil War. This is the sense in which the words "insurrection or rebellion" are used in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The January 6th riot let to the death of 5 people, two of whom died of heart attacks. No rioter brought guns to the riot in a country, which is awash in privately owned guns. I am sure many members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers owned guns, but they did not bring them to the ellipse on January 6th. The alleged "insurrection or rebellion" lasted two and one half hours, peacefully dispersed on Donald Trump's request, and occurred in one city in the third most populous country on earth after India and China. The casualties were much smaller than in the many mad gun shooting episodes, which have occurred in schools and other public places like Sandy Hook where 26 people died.
Neither the so-called Shays Rebellion nor the Whiskey Rebellion would have triggered Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment had it been the Supreme Law of the Land when those popularly labeled rebellions occurred. The "insurrections or rebellions" contemplated by Section Three must be threats to the government akin to that posed by the U.S. Civil War. The January 6, 2001 riot does not even remotely come close to reaching that level.
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
Prof. Calabresi,
Would it be asking too much for you and Somin to give it a rest?
Nobody forces you to read these posts or comments. And these posts are more interesting than their other recent topics (Clarence Thomas is the bestest Justice ever from Calabrisi, and actual libertarian content from Somin).
Or posts about Israeli law…snoooooozers!!
Well I for one do want more Clarence Thomas is the Bestest posts.
Ideally promoting Calabresi's so-far unannounced book on the subject.
I'm not criticizing the back and forth on the topic, however it is kind of getting to a yes he did, no he didn't debate. I'm not seeing many new arguments marshalled.
Let's see next, "Clarence Thomas is the best poet in the history of the English language!"
Well his opinions do have the quality of poetry.
Excellent observation Stephen.
To my recollection, 90% of Somin's posts follow the formula: (i) here is a problem and (ii) this problem can be resolved by the simple expedient of open borders. He has a hammer and almost everything is a nail. So at least it's a relief for him to talk about something else, although my thinking on this issue is more aligned with Calabresi's.
Yet this may be a side effect of Somin's open borders derangement since Trump is one of the few actually trying to close the border. This leads Somin to endorse any action to get rid of Trump.
Trump’s policies led to more illegal immigration…other than tanking the economy.
Are you kidding? The only way this could be better is if it was two people on separate blogs having a debate.
This is how things are supposed to work, and is an excellent demonstration on how serious online interactions don't have to be limited to "social media" sites.
Perhaps Prof. Calabresi in his verbosity will get around to explaining his New York Times opinion piece of January 13, 2021 (mentioned on a prior comment thread by Adabsurdum). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/13/opinion/trump-impeachment-bipartisan.html
That column, written jointly by Calabresi and Norman Eisen, boldly asserted:
The internet never forgets.
Obviously, nothing stops him from just saying, "More information has surfaced since, and in light of it I've changed my mind." Because, of course, more information HAS surfaced.
But, yes, it does need to be addressed.
I think Prof. Calabresi's likely response can be gleaned from what he has written so far. I think he would argue that the use of "insurrection" in the Fourteenth Amendment was not supposed to incorporate the commonly understood meaning of that word, but to reflect a kind of insurrection that would be analogous to the Civil War. Hence, his denial that "Shay's Rebellion" or the "Whiskey Rebellion" would be "rebellions" for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. I don't think he's disputing that those are the commonly used names for those events. So I strongly suspect he would say that he was not using the word "insurrection" in its Fourteenth Amendment sense in the NYT piece.
Of course, whether he's right or wrong about his interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is another question.
What is there to explain? He feels/felt that Trump had done stuff that was impeachable - but none of it rises to the level to trigger section 3?
He felt that Trump should be removed from office - Congress disagreed. So even if he thinks Trump shouldn't run again, that people shouldn't vote for him, his argument is that Trump *isn't legally prevented from running again because of a violation of section 3*.
He said 'inciting a violent insurrection' and now he says 'January 6, 2021 Was Not an Insurrection.'
And he's not arguing due to a legal quirk of the differing definition of insurrection from in 14As3, he's arguing common parlance.
I think the simple argument is that he wrote the initial article in heat of the moment. A very poor idea in almost all cases. When looked at with calm eyes, there's no reasonable definition of insurrection that would include this, and any unreasonable definition would have excluded at the minimum Harris and Clinton.
somin is a nazi.
He's Jewish, weirdo.
So was Hitler.
Seriously -- Hitler was part Jewish.
Seriously, get mental help. Is there any loony half-remembered thing you won't believe?
Cage match!
I'm enjoying this. I've been waiting all day for Ilya to respond to this response (to the prior response) ever since Calabresi posted this most recent response. I have to say Ilya was wiping the floor with Calabresi until this most recent response by Calabresi, which is Calabresi's first response where he doesn't come off as being off his meds. So, naturally I'd like to see what Ilya has to say in response, but it seems like I will have to go to bed with this cliffhanger still hanging.
Isn't one itsy bitsy problem with saying the earlier rebellions are equivalent to the civil war, the fact that they occurred and yet there was no effort to disqualify anyone involved from service in the government?
Um, no? Given that they predate the adoption of A14S3 by a few decades?
Jan 6th: Not like the War Of The Roses
Jan 6th: A shampoo and a conditioner
Jan 6th: still waiting for the next volume in the Song Of Ice And Fire series like the rest of us
Jan 6th: hears a Who.
Still false.
They left them in their cars -- they didn't bring them into the Capitol.
If you had that many *soldiers*, you'd have had an accidental discharge or two -- and the only rounds fired were by cops.
There were three people who were charged with carrying firearms onto Capitol grounds on January 6th. None of them drew their weapons during the riot, and from what I can tell, none of them entered the Capitol itself.
And I think that they can be forgiven. I have accidentally walked into a Post Office on several times armed with a handgun. Not because I was intending to, but because I am almost always armed - I routinely carry a .380 LCR II as a pocket pistol in my right pocket, as well as a folding knife in the left. I do usually remember my pocket gun when I walk into the Court House. Now that is funny, because a large percentage of the people working there are armed. Surprisingly, there haven’t been any wild shootouts there, at least in the last 100 years.
I dunno ... one of the people had "a loaded pistol, metal-plated body armor and a gas mask". I presume they mean armor with rifle plates. That's not 'ooops, I forgot my everyday EDC stuff' unless you live in a really bad neighborhood.
Yet he didn't use the pistol, now did he?
Some armed insurrectionist he was!
Now you're not armed if you have a gun but don't shoot anyone.
I just dunno, Bob. Steel body armor, all up, is running upwards of 20 pounds you are lugging around. And a gas mask. Is that something you typically wear around town, or just when you are expecting trouble?
If it's in a vehicle parked on capitol grounds....
To the extent that's true, it's mostly thanks to DC's strict gun laws. There's a moral there most commenters on this blog will refuse to see.
That's pretty silly. The usual point about strict gun laws is that "The only people who obey them are the people who weren't going to do anything wrong with the guns anyway."
Nobody is going to plan to violently invade the Capitol and leave their guns behind in Virginia because it would be illegal under DC law to have them. It's illegal to violently invade the Capitol!
Just to be clear what I mean here: If you WERE planning to violently invade the Capitol, I suppose you might hypothetically come up with a plan that involved leaving your guns behind, but it wouldn't be on account of not wanting to violate a gun control law...
They were planning it. They did it. The guns don't really prove anything except that maybe the appettite is not there for risking that kind of escalation, no matter how many threats Trump supporters make.
Just to be clear what I mean here: If you WERE planning to violently invade the Capitol, I suppose you might hypothetically come up with a plan that involved leaving your guns behind, but it wouldn’t be on account of not wanting to violate a gun control law…
But that's what they did.
The problem with your argument is that it amounts to saying they weren't insurrectionists because their plan was lousy. So these guys weren't Moriarty. Most criminals aren't. That doesn't make them innocent.
On the other hand, your theory is that they planned their violent insurrection by undermining their ability to use violence in order to respect local laws, which is ... not exactly consistent with the idea that they wanted to overthrow the legal authorities.
Some who traveled to Washington DC to take part planned carefully enough to stow their weapons a few miles away in Virginia; a few in trucks parked nearby; and some brought them with them. And some were arrested for carrying their weapons before the insurrection; that was what made them more cautious.
The problem with your logic is you must assume they are insurrectionists first then deny all logic and reasoning to work facts back to that conclusion. Now I don't expect better from morons that think banning guns solves gang crime and your stupidity doesn't disappoint.
You're saying 'our precious democracy' was saved because the people intent on committing insurrection *followed the law*?
I’m skeptical Trump is DQ’d by sec. 3. But didn’t Calabresi say the Equal Protection Clause legalized same-sex marriage? That wasn’t the “wrong” the Clause was meant to address.
I think this riot was just a ruse for old white dudes to get away from their ugly wives and dumb white trash kids and get sent to prison to be pounded by big black dudes.
Early candidate for Commenter of the Year.
Oh I’m just getting warmed up…
Be careful. Prof. Volokh has a record of censoring or banning commenters who make fun of or criticize conservatives. Not lately, though, so far as I am aware . . . but once a censor, always a censorship risk.
I coined the term “cankle bracelet” so I go after both sides. But I’m the only person that uses “cankle” referring to Trump…so Trump will never go to prison but he will be required to wear the cankle bracelet the FBI spent a billion dollars developing to put on Hillary. Delicious irony!!
A constitutional principle of interpretation is only useful insofar as it helps one reach the desired outcome. Consistency is not necessary.
The alleged "insurrection or rebellion" lasted two and one half hours, peacefully dispersed on Donald Trump's request,
So now Trump is the hero of the whole affair? The man sat on his ass and did nothing but cheer the insurrectionists on for 2-3 hours, after inciting the whole thing. And then he told them he loved them and they were very special.
Meh, these same halfwits defended torture…I hope you didn’t expect more out of them??
Whether he was the "hero" is a separate question from whether he is disqualified under the 14th Amendment.
Which requires him to have "engaged" in insurrection or rebellion.
Does his speech at or before the time of the actions consist of "engaging" in insurrection? I am dubious. And I assume that the Brandenburg v. Ohio law applies to this.
His defense is, he was encouraging a peaceful protest, it got out of hand, so he called them off. Perhaps that is a complete lie, but you need stronger evidence than Trump's general jerkitude.
Whether he was the “hero” is a separate question from whether he is disqualified under the 14th Amendment.
True.
I was simply reacting to Calabresi's take on Trump's behavior during the attack. Is the fact that Trump ultimately asked then to disperse more significant than the fact that he waited hours to do so.
But is the waiting an act of "engaging" in insurrection? I don't think such passive behavior qualifies. At worst that's negligence, and I don't think insurrection is something you can fall into negligently.
(I agree it is morally damning, but that's not enough to disqualify someone.)
It goes to intent and collaboration in the conspiracy.
As discussed in the DC indictment.
Or aid and comfort depending on which application you prefer.
I agree that insurrection isn't the sort of thing you can engage in passively.
I believe that Trump was taking the position that, "I offered help, and you turned it down, manage on your own." It took him a while to realize the extent to which the riot was damaging his own interests.
That's not admirable, to be sure. Then again, if he HAD sent in troops, contrary to Congress' desire, I suspect we'd be hearing right now about how it was really meant to secure his victory, and that he was shocked they shut down the riot instead of assisting it. There's not really anything he could do that would get positively spun by his foes.
You ascribe to Trump the worst kind of personality trait for someone to hold a position of responsibility.
But you'll support him anyway.
And then you launch into counterfactual land.
What an awful defense of the man.
"You ascribe to Trump the worst kind of personality trait for someone to hold a position of responsibility."
No, I ascribe to him a bad sort of personality trait for someone in a position of responsibility. Remarkably far from the worst kind, though.
I will, reluctantly, support him if he gets the nomination and the Democrats nominate Biden, because I'm not assessing him relative to some imaginary idea, I'm assessing him relative to the actual alternative.
Which is pretty awful.
You do realize all of the bad things you ascribe to Biden were caused by Trump? Trump surrendered to the Taliban and the Trump Tax Cuts and Covid lockdowns led to the inflation. Furthermore, we are energy dominant because of how Biden has responded to Putin’s asinine invasion of Ukraine.
“I offered help, and you turned it down, manage on your own.” It took him a while to realize the extent to which the riot was damaging his own interests.
I'd argue this is just about the worst way to handle responsibility you can have.
Just about the worst way, except for numerous examples of actual despots, around the world, who would have sent the rioters aid, not merely left it to Congress to manage for a while with the the resources they'd told him were adequate when he'd offered more.
It's an amazing failure of imagination to think that Trump couldn't have done much worse that day, than simply not acting immediately.
Trump didn't offer help. Nobody refused help from the National Guard, but the Trump administration explicitly blocked the National Guard from responding to civil disturbance without explicit authorization a day before the insurrection.
It's probably true that he could not turn his reputation around at the last minute, but that's because he spent months going down the road to insurrection.
‘There’s not really anything he could do that would get positively spun by his foes.’
You, a supporter, defend him by spinning things he does as just somewhat less awful, but still acceptable to you, than as spun by his foes. Nobody spins his stuff as positive.
Not passive, B.L.
In the middle of things Trump tweeted "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done," and when urged by staffers to ask the insurrectionists to leave declined to do so.
Passivity can be complicity.
Stronger evidence abounds. But of course, evidence faces a high bar to get over, "Trump's general jerkitude."
Bernard, I pray that you are never in a volatile situation with limited and conflicting information because -- while well intended -- you'll do something stupid that exacerbates the hell out of it.
Go find a senior cop who knows something about crowd control and buy the guy a beer. And listen to what he says about having to be cautious about what you say lest you make things *worse*.
Often, saying NOTHING is the wisest and most responsible thing to do, but don't listen to me -- find some big-city cop who's had to deal with tumultuous sports celebrations or even things like St. Patrick's Day parades.
Trump had plenty of accurate information.
And we are not talking about sending troops to fire at the insurrectionists. We are talking about the guy they are fighting for asking them to stop. Pretty simple. Pretty straightforward.
And the fact that he didn't do it is pretty damning.
See above, and ask said senior cop if he'd like the mayor to remain silent and WHY...
I'm sorry I responded to "above."
It made no sense when you posted it, and your later comment makes less.
So you're saying he waited until exactly the right time to ask them to go home? lol.
It would have been dangerous to ask them to go home at 2pm, but at 5pm it was a wise an heroic thing to do. Do you believe any of the shit your write?
I called him up, he said you're full of shit and to stop using him to prop up your bad arguments.
"after inciting the whole thing"
Then charge him with insurrection, Jack Smith needs to shit or get off the pot, as Nixon once said to Eisenhower.
Incites is actually an element of the charge:
"18 U.S.C. 2383 says, “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection"
Kazinski, I return to my former advocacy: January 6 was like the Civil War; the leaders in both cases committed treason.
Because Trump thought the DOJ was supposed to be his personal lawyers, you guys just can't get your heads around the fact that Jack Smith is independent of this. Jack Smith is prosecuting the violations of federal law that he thinks are best. That has nothing to do with the 2024 election.
"Jack Smith is independent"
Assertion with no evidence other than self-serving statements. You can believe in the fairy tale if you wish.
He was recruited to bring the charges.
That's is an excellent point.
Jack Smith the completely independent prosecutor doesn't think, with full knowledge of all the evidence, that Trump is an insurrectionist.
That should be good enough for you.
Did you ask him?
If he thinks Trump is an insurrectionist and can prove it, then its his job to indict him and prove it.
I hope you aren't claiming Smith is up to the responsibilities of his job.
No, Jack Smith is not a robot. His job includes the exercise of boatloads of discretion.
In the ordinary case, "so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion." United States Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996), quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978).
No, lots of people think what Trump did was a form of insurrection in and of itself with no reference to any criminal or civil conviction; it's simply a charcterisation of his actions. So Jack Smith could well think that.
“Stop the ste”
The last words of Ashtray Babbitt that will inspire a new generation of patriots to take back their country!! I wonder what “ste” means??
"Section Three does apply to future "insurrections or rebellions", but they have to be analogous in some way to the Civil War. "
That's quite a claim. Is there some support for that assertion in the text? Is the idea that the framers and ratifiers of 14A were unaware of any other type of insurrection?
1: Whom was the 14th Amendment directed at?
2: Why was it directed at them?
What is the secret of the grail?
Whom does it serve?
Yeah, I agree, a coup is an insurrection even if not violent.
But Jan. 6th was not a coup attempt either.
Jan. 6th was not a coup attempt
What do you call a violent effort to install an illegitimate President, if not a coup attempt?
Unserious person thinks Donald Trump was not legitimately President on Jan 6th, 2020 and therefore needed to be installed by a mob.
Absolute moron thinks any president would have been installed on January 6th, by a mob or anyone else.
Unserious person!
Coming from a jackass who has yet to make a sensible comment.
They were trying to keep him in office past his term, you buffoon. Whether they did that on Jan 6 or Jan 20 doesn't matter at all.
They had neither an intent nor a credible ability to force that outcome. They wanted to convince Congress to act in a non-default way -- but it's almost certain that they didn't agree on the specific course that Congress should take. Without that kind of shared intent (or central authority that can hold such an intent), it's not honest to call the overall riot an insurrection.
Your attempt to obfuscate the timing involved and desired actions shows how far wrong you are on the substance.
They wanted to convince Congress to act in a non-default way
Hahahaha oh you made me pee a little.
They had neither an intent nor a credible ability to force that outcome.
What does it matter that they lacked the ability? For the umpteenth time, a failed coup is still a coup attempt. That it was an incompetent attempt changes nothing.
As for intent, well, they wanted to hang Pence, they used violence against Capitol Police, and they clearly planned to use force to get Congress to do what they wanted.
And here's another thing. They rejected the election outcome, they rejected recounts that had already occurred, they rejected court decisions upholding the results. There is no reason to think they would have accepted a further examination of the results that showed Biden winning. That's absurd.
The intent was to keep Trump in office, which amounts to overthrowing the government.
"For the umpteenth time, a failed coup is still a coup attempt. That it was an incompetent attempt changes nothing."
Yabbut. I just walked out to the porch and announced "Listen up, everybody, I'm taking over as emperor of the United States". Nobody answered, so after a while I came back in and had dinner.
That is absolutely a coup attempt, but would you quantify it as 1.0 coups, 0.1 coups, or a femto-coup? Stalin famously said that quantity had a quality all it's own, and I think that's true. It's not reasonable to treat every nano-coup like a 0.5 coup.
A parking lot door ding and having a near death experience when your car is totaled are both 'collisions', but the severity matters.
What's the overt act?
I announced that I was in charge.
If the objection is that mere words are not sufficient, then also I went to the sporting goods store and bought a box of ammunition, fully intending to use it as I lead the army of followers my proclamation will attract on our triumphant march to Washington. Does that upgrade it from a femto-coup to a pico-coup?
Keep going.
I'm not yet convinced you've done anything illegal.
Stewart Rhodes wanted Trump to use the Insurrection Act to stay in power, so they needed to create an insurrection that would justify it.
Plans to prevent the transfer of power was why so many Oath Keepers were found guilty of seditious conspiracy.
They wanted to convince Congress to act in a non-default way
No. They wanted Pence to break the law. And when he didn't they talked of hanging him.
Yes, just like Democrats were involved in one giant insurrection the summer of 2020. They tried to burn down government buildings across the country, including federal ones. They attacked DHS (ICE) facilities. They tried to storm the White House. None of them are eligible to hold federal office, in Congress or otherwise.
Congratulations on where you got by mindlessly lumping together a lot of people.
You're an idiot.
I accept your concession that you cannot meaningfully distinguish the two cases.
It’s been distinguished many times. In threads where you were present. You keep repeating a debunked talking point. Ergo, you are an idiot.
(Among other things, the 2020 riots were ancillary to protests and, in any event, neither the riots nor protests were aimed at stopping the peaceful transfer of power or to otherwise interfere in elections or to force, through violence, any particular government action or inaction. In short, there was a purpose to J6 that has no analogue to anything in 2020 other than, perhaps, the Seattle autonomous zone and I’m with Ilya that elected officials who participated or were involved in supporting the autonomous zone should be disqualified if someone wants to pursue that.)
Sure, keep telling yourself there was no purpose to a hundred nights of attacks on the Portland federal courthouse. No purpose to the firebombing of the ICE building in Tacoma, WA. No purpose to trying to storm the White House that summer.
Denying purpose in all of those events is a lot more of a stretch than saying there was no common purpose -- beyond the constitutionally innocent one of trying to get Congress to act differently -- on January 6th.
'Denying purpose'
Who's denying purpose? The protests were against police brutality. If the outbreaks of violence were driven by a political purpose, it was the same.
"Yes, just like Democrats were involved in one giant insurrection the summer of 2020. They tried to burn down government buildings across the country, including federal ones. They attacked DHS (ICE) facilities. They tried to storm the White House. None of them are eligible to hold federal office, in Congress or otherwise."
A question or two or three, Michael P.
1) To which Democrats do you refer here?
2) As to each, what was his/her involvement in an insurrection?
3) As to each, is he/she currently running for office?
Tu quoque is always weak tea. Here you don't even have that.
1) Democrats across the country, especially those who encouraged those violent actions or others. You’ve seen the lists of quotes about summers of love at CHAZ/CHOP, about getting in the faces of government officials and disturbing their daily activities, about reaping the whirlwind, and more.
2) Some were involved directly in the insurrections. Others incited them, except more directly than Trump is allegedly to have done on J6 — for example, many Democrats spoke in advance of the violent action, whereas much of Trump’s supposed incitement was after others began the J6 riot.
3) Many of them are running for office. Others purport to be Senators now, and are not up for re-election next year.
Come on, you know this — you’ve employed your lame demanding-detail shtick in previous threads, and people have indulged you. Don’t act like you are stupid.
Interesting that you statists see protesting police brutality as insurrection.
Typing lots of words does not constitute detail. In the process, you cited precisely zero concrete examples. You describe some general actions purportedly taken, but named not a single Democratic Party official/member. E.g., “many Democrats spoke in advance of the violent action.” Actual evidence in reply to the request for detail would consist of naming names and citing at least one credible source for what are otherwise simply assertions of fact.
That said, I agree with earlier commenters and Prof Somin that the officials who DID, indeed, participate in lawless action directed at the government are absolutely subject to disqualification.
He certainly can't acknowledge that last bit...it skewers his entire line of reasoning.
I have yet to hear anyone say that any others found to have "engaged in insurrection" (for 14th Amendment purposes) should not also be barred from holding office. So his entire "gotcha!" is just an absurd projection.
They had neither an intent nor a credible ability to force that outcome.
Storm the Congress with legislators still inside and demand they hold a vote to count the EC votes in favour of Trump. Easier if some GOP legislators are willing participants and/or you forcibly keep some Democrats off the floor.
It still fails, but someone who thinks the election was stolen is delusional enough to think that course of action would keep Trump in power.
They wanted to convince Congress to act in a non-default way
I've love to see you in a trial, "The prosecutor calls it murder, however my client merely caused the victim to breath in a non-default way".
Do you think this timing nonsense is cute?
It's all he's got. Play nice with the idiots, Sarcastr0.
... and when neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound on the table.
I would absolutely call a violent attempt to install an illegitimate president a coup attempt.
But that's not what was being done on that day.
Okay, but that's the relevant question. Not "Was what happened as bad as the Civil War."
At Trump's urging, many of the rioters were looking for Pence. Were they hoping to get him to autograph their MAGA hats, or did they intend to silence him, keep him from performing his duties, or worse? What if they had managed to catch him? Would that have been a coup?
.
Would any Northwestern law professor other than an affirmative action (for conservatives) hire have advanced that assertion?
.
What does this award-winning Federalist Society leader have against standard English (commas in particular)?
It appears he’s dedicated to replicating the grammar in the hopelessly horribly punctuated Constitution. Great document, excellent strings of words, with what might be generously called arbitrary & capricious use of commas.
I've said it before and I will say it again: if it was an insurrection why has no one, and most notably Donald Trump been charged with Insurrection?
A conviction, if it wouldn't remove all doubt, would remove most doubt, and the government could present its evidence in a public forum.
Now I have been told that the reason it hasn't been charged because it is a hard charge to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
All I can say about that is, I can't wait for the Solicitor General's brief:
'Trump is an insurrectionist and should be disqualified, but we can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.'
I hope the Supreme Court asks the SG to join the case and provide a brief, it will be very telling if the SG doesn't want to participate in the case.
Do you really need it proven beyond some reasonable doubt that what Trump attempted was some sort of attempt at a kind of insurrection? If insurrection is the wrong word, just that all the things he did in an effort to thwart the transfer of power constitute an attempt to seize control of the office of the top government official in the Uited States? What is the correct word for what he did? Is it acceptable? Is it tolerable? Why, in short, were his actions not repugnant to you and to all the others who defend him?
Do you really need it proven beyond some reasonable doubt that what Trump attempted was some sort of attempt at a kind of insurrection?
Yes.
What went on leading up to and including January 6 was despicable, lamentable, and a lot of other descriptive bad things.
However, talking about thwarting the transfer and seizing power is nonsense. The only way that could have happened was if any of the things Trump was saying had happened were proven true. If he had succeeded, it wouldn't have been seizing control, it would have been a legal technicality, emphasis on legal. But he had no chance at succeeding, because he had no facts necessary to support his legal strategy. The selection and voting of electors is an immovable deadline. Pence trying to throw electoral votes, unprecedented, wouldn't have survived the equally unprecedend vote overturning the ruling of the chair. There was not a majority in either house supporting overturning the electoral vote to make Trump president.
But I realize that many Trump haters are invested in the idea that his scheme could have succeeded. Because it's a useful cudgel to beat other people with.
'However, talking about thwarting the transfer and seizing power is nonsense.'
Why? It seems pretty explicitly what Trump was completely focused on the whole time. Whether he succeeded, whether it was even possible, or not *this was what he wanted* Why does that count for nothing more than regretful headshaking? Why do you not hate Trump for what he tried to do?
“But I realize that many Trump haters are invested in the idea that his scheme could have succeeded.”
Why can’t you Trump supporters see that it doesn’t matter whether he could have succeeded? He thought he could. His supporters did. The next wannabe dictator will learn from what he did (both in how people like you make excuses for him and, perhaps, vote for him again because all that happened was he tried to stay in power after losing an election and in the tactical/strategic blunders that could be refined to a strategy with a greater chance of success next time.
A failed attempt is still an attempt. A failed attempt that had no real chance of success is still an attempt.
And, in this sort of thing, it really is the thought that counts.
No one who tries such a thing, no matter how incompetently, should be trusted with the levers of power. Anyone thinking of voting for him is absolutely, in the deepest sense, anti-American.
Sure, but it’s a failed attempt at what?
“Seizing” power? No, that would be the word to use if he’d just bombed the Capitol and declared himself President for life, or something else equally distant from the legal procedure.
What he was attempting here was to divert the formal process for deciding the election in his direction. To persuade people in a position to exercise discretion to exercise it in his favor.
He was trying to be formally declared President via the law, by an actual vote of Congress.
You can claim that it would be an improper vote, but if he’d succeeded it wouldn’t have formally been improper. It would have been following the formal procedures.
Now, I think the attempt was foredoomed, he did not have remotely the votes to succeed even before the break in at the Capitol rendered his effort radioactive. But that’s what he was attempting.
Not to “seize” power.
I mean, let's suppose he wins the election this fall, but Democrats carry Congress, and they vote to refuse to certify him as President on the basis that he's barred from office by Section 3. Would that be them "seizing" power? Or just an (Improper in the opinion of many.) exercise of actual legal discretion?
Hidden in your analysis, Brett, are some important assumptions.
First, calling violence and lawbreaking "persuasion" is dishonest. It implies peaceful discussion. If you got mugged would you say the mugger was just trying to persuade you to hand over your wallet, so no big deal?
Second, the election results had been scrutinized, audited, recounted any number of times. And of course there were any number of court cases telling Trump he was full of shit. Just how long can this "persuasion" go on?
Third, and I think critically, you assume, baselessly, that Trump would have accepted another round of this if it showed him losing. Suppose a reexamination had shown, again, that Trump lost. Do you seriously imagine he would have shrugged his shoulders and walked away? Of course not. He would have continued as would his "persuaders."
Oh, and what do you mean by "exercise discretion in his favor?" just throw out the real EV's and substitute phony ones?
Your dedication to the Trump cult has reached pathological levels.
What he did was equally distant from the legal procedure.
In the same way that the guy pointing his gun at the bank teller and demanding $100,000 in small unmarked bills is attempting to persuade someone in a position to exercise discretion to exercise it in his favor.
It would of course not be them seizing power; how would making Elise Stefanik president (that's what happens if the elected president is unable to take office for any reason — death, disqualification, etc. — the vice president-elect becomes president) be the Democrats taking power?
Why do you keep conflating insurrection with “seizing power?” Any attempt to intimidate officials with threats of or actual violence to take some course of action. Merriam-Webster’s definition is typical, “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” Granted, by that definition, some (but no nearly so many as whatabouters insist) of the actions in the summer of ‘20 would qualify, and, as I stated earlier, I support those people being held appropriately accountable.
Insurrection and coup d’etat are not synonyms. The latter is one kind of the former, but only a subset.
Well murder, rape, and child sex abuse are all pretty bad too. But they need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am not sure you want to go down that slippery slope.
Well you've convicted Biden of corruption severtal times but let that go, I'm talking about why you, a thinking person who is aware of the facts, needs a criminal conviction before deciding that Donald Trump's efforts to stay in power after losing the election constitute actions that make his continued viability as a candidate incompatible with a functioning democracy.
Just to be clear - this is as regards your own personal political choices in terms of what you are willing to accept from a president and a presidential candidate.
Well obviously I've accused him, but I've never said he should be removed or disqualified or suffer any consequence, other than the verdict of the electorate, without either impeachment or trial by a jury of his peers.
The most I've called for is a thorough investigation.
But you're going to vote for Trump, and R straight down the line as well?
Answer Nige's question.
Why aer you accusing if he hasn't been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
No, you keep introducing new evidence you claim is damning and conclusive, which is an odd thing to do when you don't think there should be consequences, unless there's someone else who you also want to to protect from consequences but who has somewhat less shoddy evidence against them.
That depends on the consequences; there are varying standards of proof required, and you've shown no reason that the standard you demand is the correct one.
Well murder, rape, and child sex abuse are all pretty bad too. But they need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
No they don't. OJ was found to be a murderer and forced to pay the price, but wasn't convicted. Trump was found to be a rapist and forced to pay the price, but wasn't convicted.
Yes.
Even you, here, in this very comment say 'some sort of attempt at a kind of insurrection'. Even you aren't certain exactly what happened.
What uncertanty is there? Why does the label of 'insurrection' matter so much, in terms of personal pootical choices? Why is what he did not enough to persuade you that he tried to stay in power despite losing the election and that someone who did that is not worthy of your vote? Is, in fact, an insult to you and every other person who votes?
I presume anyone charged with insurrection would be charged under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 as it stood on January 6, 2021.
That may, or may not, be what those that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment understood the word "insurrection" to mean, in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment, in in 1868.
It is the meaning in 1868 in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment that is relevant. This is just as if the meaning of the Second Amendment would not be altered by Congress passing a law implementing gun control and and defining "well regulated" as meaning "controlled by the President" and "infringed" as being "an absolute prohibition on accessing an arm of any sort in any situation or place".
It is of course true that charging Trump under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 might result in disclosure of evidence that would be helpful in answering the Section 3 question.
The second amendment doesn't have a section 5. There is no need for implementing legislation to not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. It means NOT passing any law doing that.
My example was presented only as an example of the meaning of the text at the time of drafting/ratification being controlling regardless of legislation that preceded it or followed it.
Subsequent statutory legislation simply can't redefine what the Constitution means.
To your point, Section 5 only authorizes Congress to enforce, via appropriate legislation, the other sections of the Fourteenth Amendment. It doesn't in any way extend to Congress additional powers to enact legislation outside how those provisions were understood at the time of drafting and ratification of the amendment.
For example Congress can't enact legislation that denies citizenship to those whose parents are not US citizens and who were delivered in the US but conceived in Mexico by declaring that "born" means "those individuals who were conceived in the United States" even if at some point in the future the common meaning of "born" becomes synonymous with "conceived".
"Insurrection" is no different - albeit less crisp than "born".
Define infringement.
Article I Section 8 has a "Section 5" that covers the entire Constitution:
Obviously that's not right or the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments (and several subsequent amendments) wouldn't have needed their enabling clauses.
And it's obviously irrelevant to the 2nd amendment since the N&P clause you cite gives Congress the power to make laws to execute powers granted to Congress, and the 2nd amendment isn't a power granted to Congress; it's a restriction on Congress's power.
You're no fun.
Kazinski, disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 is a civil disability, not requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Donald Trump is 77 years old and is charged in D.C. with criminal offenses carrying more severe criminal penalties than insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383. He is also facing additional federal charges in Florida. What would be the point of bringing additional charges for which Trump will not live long enough to be penalized?
Do you have an authority that disqualification of a federal office holder under Section 3 is a civil disability?
The only judgement I am aware to so hold is not final and currently under appeal.
Arizona's Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling that a conviction was needed, and was not appealed to a higher court.
Because it’s not criminal.
Default is civil.
18 U.S. Code § 2383 is criminal not civil.
Can you point me to any legislation proscribing civil penalties for insurrection?
You're back on your bullshit. That's a statute; it is not the Constitution.
You're making a leap from one to the other based on ipse dixit. And ignoring Constitutional text, Supreme Court precedent, and cannons of interpretation.
The Supreme Court can do that and get away with it. You just look stubbornly ignorant.
Here's one.
https://www.cohenmilstein.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Order-Couy-Griffin-Insurrection-Sept.-6-2022.pdf
That decision is based at least in part on New Mexico law, NMSA 1978 (pg1 of the decision), so of course would not apply nationally or to federal offices.
"Do you have an authority that disqualification of a federal office holder under Section 3 is a civil disability?"
It has a separate bit specifically relating to 14s3. That part, by itself, recognizes that it's a civil disability.
Did you think anyone would fall for your ridiculous mischaracterization of the finding here?!
The order says "pursuant to section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment AND NMSA 1978 sections...". Of course the opinion has sections analyzing both of them. The opinion expressly says it is based on both.
Is it possible it could have ruled solely based on Section 3? Sure its possible, but it didn't.
That is not how you read an opinion. It’s not just the order that’s authoritative, or legal analysis would be lots easier.
"Do you have an authority that disqualification of a federal office holder under Section 3 is a civil disability?"
There are multiple cases which didn't involve criminal convictions. Randal cited one.
Here's another: Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N.C. 199 (1869), appeal dismissed, 76 U.S. 611 (1869).
And another: Louisiana ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631 (La. 1869).
Kazinski, you are (once again) lying about what the Arizona courts held. The Superior Court opined at footnote 4: "The Court declines the invitation from Rep. Finchem to opine as to whether only a criminal conviction is required to enforce the Disqualification Clause. The Court need not reach this issue." https://media.azpm.org/master/document/2022/4/22/pdf/hansen-v-finchem-ruling.pdf
The Arizona Supreme Court summarized the trial court ruling as follows:
The Arizona Supreme Court based its decision on its construction of an Arizona statute:
Hansen v. Finchem, CV-22-0099-AP/EL (Ariz. May. 9, 2022).
There is no substitute for original source materials.
What's this then?
"The Court, en banc, has considered the briefs and authorities in this appeal, and agrees with the superior court that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We note that Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment appears to expressly delegate to Congress the authority to devise the method to enforce the Disqualification Clause ("The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"*), which suggests that A.R.S. § 16-351(B) does not provide a private right of action to invoke the Disqualification Clause against the Candidates."
https://casetext.com/case/hansen-v-finchem
* the decision misquotes section 5, much more on that later in the open thread.
Does it say sole authority?
It does not. You read that in there because you fasten onto a thesis so hard it often seems to effect your reading skills.
The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883) ( “This amendment, as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances.” )
What do you think "expressly delegate" means?
Better check your dictionary or have Chatgpt explain it to you.
It doesn't mean enforcement is solely limited to Congress. Given our system gives states the authority and responsibility to manage elections and determine who is eligible to be on the ballot, it would be an absurd reading to say that only Congress- who doesn't run elections- has the authority to say who can and who can't be on the ballot.
Express authority does not mean sole authority.
Like they are completely different words.
You want to be right so hard you failed English.
No, I think you're missing his argument. The "sole" part is supposed to come from the use of "the" power. Which treats said power as a singular item, rather than a mass noun.
If I give you soup, that's soup as a mass noun, and doesn't preclude somebody else also having said soup.
If I give you "the" soup, that's soup as a singular noun, and it does imply that nobody else has "the" soup.
Now, I think this word will not bear the weight he's placing on it, but I do understand the reasoning here.
Kazinski, what part of “we need not decide these issues because we hold that” a narrower ground is dispositive do you not understand?
Distinguishing between the holding of a decision and obiter dicta contained in the decision is first semester law school stuff. (Which I surmise you have never been exposed to.)
* Many online and "official" sources misquote Section 5, I've noticed, which is not exactly great news for those whose entire world view is seemingly predicated upon the controlling presence or absence of the word, "the".
Also, saying that 14/3 isn't self-executing is totally different from saying it requires a conviction.
It might, in fact, not be self-exexuting (although I doubt it).
It definitely 100% does not require a conviction.
One could easily take the other position and ask why, since they are already charging him with multiple crimes, they would not add on the additional insurrection charges.
The ask yourself, which is the usual process? To charge someone with some of their crimes and say "I think this is enough" or to charge them with all of there crimes (and often some extra charges that are a bit of a stretch) and try them for all of their crimes?
As for people not living long enough to be penalized, again that doesn't usually stop the courts from imposing lengthy sentences, including multiple life terms.
There is a maxim among jury trial lawyers: the mind cannot absorb what the butt cannot endure.
Jack Smith could have taken a page from Fani Willis's book and charged beaucoup defendants in a far ranging conspiracy along with each of the substantive crimes within the ambit of the conspiracy. Instead Smith -- who knows a bit about putting away tyrants -- developed a relatively smaller nucleus of facts which are largely incontrovertible and charged the criminal statutes that most readily fit the facts. The latter course, IMO, is more prudent, making for simpler and more straightforward trials in D.C. and in Florida.
Donald Trump likely doesn't have too many more days above ground. Each of those days he spends in a courthouse is a day he spends out of prison.
"A conviction, if it wouldn’t remove all doubt, would remove most doubt,"
Nonsense. You, both personally and collectively, would double down. Just look at the classified documents case, with overwhelming evidence, a public confession, and unambiguous laws, yet you continue to cry that it's a conspiracy to convict an innocent man for partisan reasons. No way you or any other MAGA would accept an insurrection conviction as legitimate at all.
Exactly.
Listen to the complaints about the possibility of a DC jury.
Cultists are irrational.
I'm on the record in an open thread last week that January 6th wasn't an insurrection in the sense of Section 3. So surprisingly, I agree with prof. Calabresi. It has to be something along the lines of Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion, i.e. something with an armed militia/group of some sort which is looking to overthrow the government, or form a separate government in US territory, through military means. Throwing a few punches doesn't make a demonstration an insurrection in the sense of Section 3. Not even if some demonstrators brought guns. (It is the US after all.)
The canon of interpretation that gets you there could be noscitur a sociis, or the mischief rule, or (presumably) the legislative history of this provision. It doesn't seem plausible that the drafters of the 14th amendment also meant for Section 3 to be applied to relatively minor kerfuffles, not even if they came within a definition of insurrection specified by Congress for the purposes of criminal law.
That is true even if Congress used its power under Section 5 to define insurrection for the purposes of Section 3. Just like Congress can't invent new rights under Section 1 in order to protect them through civil rights legislation, it also cannot use its power to define to set the bar under Section 3 (substantially) lower than the drafters and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment intended. It could not, for example, define whole categories of felonies as insurrection under Section 3, in order to disqualify thousands of Americans. (E.g. everyone who's ever used violence against a law enforcement officer.)
Well, that was refreshing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of Trump being prevented from running, but the proper path for doing that is with a criminal trial and a punishment that includes ineligibility to run for office. Let's save Section 3 for the next civil war.
So what criminal prosecution do you see that disqualifies him?
It ought to be possible to order ineligibility to stand for office as part of a criminal sentence, just like someone's voting rights can be taken away. It's weird that in the US felons often can't vote, but might still be able to stand for office.
You might be able to do it as part of Parole conditions.... or I guess if the felon was still imprisoned, you could argue that exercising the duties of the office was inimical to the conditions the convict was required to live under while in prison?
Like, if prison doesn't allow you to have 'violent' books, then you can't hold office as the "chief county librarian for military history".
"It’s weird that in the US felons often can’t vote, but might still be able to stand for office."
It's not actually that weird; Barring them from voting is authorized by an explicit constitutional provision, Section 2 of the 14th amendment. And it only impacts the rights of the convicted, nobody else.
But here you're talking about barring others from voting for them, you're restricting the rights of people not before the court. It wasn't until just a couple years ago that even Section 3 was interpreted as barring running for office, rather than just holding the office if elected.
Holding political office > voting for who should hold political office. In a normal constitution, blocking someone from holding office is easier than preventing someone from voting.
Martinned, it was a violent coup attempt, led on the ground by militia members in military array. It was backed by an arsenal of firearms which they expected to use the instant they encountered military resistance.
Those militias left the Capitol because Trump got cold feet, and called it off before it came to a gun battle in the Capitol. Had that happened, martial law would have ended the transfer of power. It was that close.
By the way, Trump's cold feet contribute to my opinion that he does not deserve execution for his treason.
Trump didn't have cold feet. He's a fundamentally unserious person, who couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery. If there's an evil mastermind here, it's definitely not him. If ever there's a fascist revolution, Trump would be the face, not the brains.
Martinned, cognitive talents are not all alike. Genius to learn organic chemistry may not track with genius to make optimal pitch selections in a baseball game.
Trump has amply demonstrated intuitive political genius, akin to that shown by some of the most ruthless strong men in world history. It is a grave mistake to underestimate that capacity, and where it might lead. For instance, as in previous cases, lack of other cognitive talents, could turn Trump's one big talent into a recipe for catastrophe.
Um, citation most definitely needed. I have never heard that there was an "arsenal of firearms" which was to be used by "militia members in military array".
Are you privy to special information that federal prosecutors and a Congressional Special Committee missed?
From The font:
"On November 5, 2020, two days after the presidential election, Oath Keeper leaders began communicating about a "civil war". On November 9, Oath Keeper leaders held an online members-only video conference in which leader Stewart Rhodes outlined a plan to stop the transfer of power, including preparations for using force to accomplish the goal. Oath Keepers planned to store "an arsenal" with a "Quick Reaction Force" (QRF) in nearby Alexandria, Virginia. The leaders planned to procure boat transportation so that bridge closures could not prevent their entry into D.C."
The Guardian with similar info.
@Stephen: It's the US. People bring guns to go to the cinema. That's a whole separate kettle of fish.
Martinned, as someone with more first-hand experience with America's gun culture than you seem to command, I strongly advise lifting the lids on those kettles to see what kinds of fish are in them.
Martinned, I'm confused as how you can say that you "agree with Prof. Calabresi" that it "has to be something along the lines of Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion," when what Prof. Calabresi just wrote was exactly the opposite:
"Neither the so-called Shays Rebellion nor the Whiskey Rebellion would have triggered Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment had it been the Supreme Law of the Land when those popularly labeled rebellions occurred."
As for Calabresi's position here: the Constitution expressly says that Congress has the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." It is rather unlikely that by "insurrection" they only meant something as big as the Civil War, as opposed to things like Shay's Rebellion, which was one of the events that prompted the constitution to be adopted in the first place.
Now, of course — as we've discussed — what a constitutional term like "insurrection" meant in 1788 is not necessarily what in meant in 1868, but unlike wrt the term "office" there's no textual support for linguistic drift.)
There's absolutely textual support for linguistic drift about what "insurrection" means. We have a fairly good idea -- from dictionaries, from previous indictments under the Insurrection Act, from attempts to disqualify people after the Civil Wars that Congress legislated away -- what was considered an insurrection back then, and what was not.
Today, we have people arguing that trying to convince a federal official to do something "novel" (in the bad sense: unprecedented and with dubious constitutional support) itself qualifies as an insurrection. That's way below the threshold that used to be used. So is giving a speech while others riot.
You have zero evidence from any of your vaguely hand waved sources or anything else that people defined the term "insurrection" differently in 1788 and 1868.
In contrast, there are express statements from 1868 that the people using the terms "office of the U.S." and "office under the U.S." and the like in that year were using them interchangeably and understood them to include the president.
I'm more in line with David here, than Martinned, an insurrection does not require set battles.
It does require an intent to supplant or thwart lawful authority, not just dissent from it.
Certainly, a serious attempt to thwart the lawful transfer of power meets any such definition.
A serious attempt would, yes, I agree.
But you don't agree that this was a serious attempt?
No, I think it was a hot mess, with lots of individual people attempting to do lots of things, but no one achieving the level of coordination necessary for anything to rise to the level of a "serious attempt". It's basically a demonstration that got out of hand. Let's not make more of it than it is.
(Even though I enjoy obscure constitutional discussions as much as the next person. Trump certainly has a way of making us all suddenly care about constitutional provisions that nobody ever paid attention to before, be it the emoluments clause or Section 3. What's next, the 3rd amendment?)
I don't think that works. You could characterize the Civil War as a hot mess with lots of individual people attempting to do lots of things. So that can't matter.
The district court lays it out well. There was a "serious attempt" planned from the top. Then you had some pretty well-organized elements leading the charge (proud boys or oath keepers or whoever). Then you had the "soldiers" making up the manpower, who (from interviews) seemed to largely understand the purpose.
That's largely how it works in an army. A rebellion or insurrection doesn't require every soldier to fully embrace the seditionist goals.
They planned it, documented it and tried to implement it. That easily meets my test of seriousness.
It [an insurrection] does require an intent to supplant or thwart lawful authority, not just dissent from it.
And that is what the rioters intended. To thwart the certification of Biden as the winner of the election according to the law and Constitution. They weren't just protesting or voicing their displeasure.
Forget the rioters. They were just tools. And, they probably didn't break their oaths and they're not being barred from holding office.
Nobody cares about the rioters--not even Trump, who evidently preferred they rot in jail for four years, rather than pardon them.
@David: True, I don't agree with Calabresi entirely, pretty much for the reason you say.
What Somin needs, to be persuasive, is some kind of bright line metric that would distinguish an "insurrection" from an ordinary "riot." I haven't seen that from him or anyone else. (Except Sarcastro, who thinks a set of legal memos asking the the Vice President to take some legally questionable actions gets over the insurrection line, a contention which I find, shall we say, unpersuasive.)
I would have thought that an "insurrection" requires things like an armed force, an alternative government, and the like, but if not that, what are the distinguishing features?
Noah Webster’s dictionary from 1860 defined “insurrection”
as: "A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active
opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city or state. ... 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."
We can argue about whether Jan. 6 was an insurrection. But any insistence that "insurrection" means exactly the same thing as "rebellion" disregards the plain meaning of the term and ignores the canon of construction dictating that terms in a statute (or constitution) should not be read in a way that renders them mere surplusage.
Even Trump's lawyers in Colorado acknowledged that "an insurrection is more than a riot but less than a rebellion."
"Jan. 6 was nothing like the Civil War," is a true statement. It is also irrelevant indeterming whether Jan. 6 was an insurrection.
And half of America still honors the Confederate States of America.
But neither you nor Webster is saying how an "insurrection" is different from a "riot." Let's try a different, inductive tack. When partisans (neutral word) in Minneapolis seized and burned a police station, was that an "insurrection"? What about when partisans in Portland assaulted a federal courthouse? Or when, some time back, partisans in Wisconsin invaded the state capitol building?
If they want to be the new police force let them go for it!! Talk about a thankless job!! And I know a very good cop that wasn’t even old that said “fuck this shit, I’m outta here!!” around that time. So the Jan 6 insurrectionists wanted to be part of a new government.
Oh, the BLM riots in Minneapolis were literally instigated by a false flag operation led by a Trump supporting white supremacist. So do Ray Epps conspiracy theorists believe those riots should be dismissed because they were instigated by a false flag operation??
Let's leave Wisconsin out of our discussin. My recollection was that there was a peaceful, multi-day sit-in in the rotunda of the state capital, which would not consititue an insurection. But I do not remember the details of that incident well enough to want to debate it.
The rest of your questions is "When partisans (neutral word) in Minneapolis seized and burned a police station, was that an 'insurrection'? What about when partisans in Portland assaulted a federal courthouse?" May answer, in both cases is "Yes." For the purposes of the 14th Amendment, partisans engaged in a civil insurrection in both Minnesota and Oregon. In each example you cite, there was a "rising against civil or political authority" and partisans engaged in "open and active opposition ... to the execution of law." A hypothetical, retired U.S. Army captain (who necessarily would have taken an oath to defend the Constitution) who participated in an attack on a police station or courthouse would be disqualified from serving in Congress under Section 3.
I am replying to my own comment. I origionally answered too quickly. The 14th Amendment addresses insurrection against the federal governmnet. So, an attack on a federal courthouse intended to shut down the ordiary operation and adminstration of federal laws would be an insurrection. The attack on the courhouse in Portland quaifies. But, having thought things through further, I doubt that attacking a city police station in Minneaplois, or any where else -- as opposed to (for example) attacking an FBI office -- would count as a civil insurection under Section 3.
PS. y81 I like your question and have no idea what SBF is talking about.
It depends on what the attack on the courthouse was intended to accomplish.
Was it an attempt to convince policymakers to allocate less funds to the police department? Not insurrection.
Was it an attempt to break a specific criminal defendant out of custody? Not insurrection.
General hooliganism? Not insurrection.
An attempt to shut down the court in order to prevent the enforcement of the law in the area? Insurrection.
Portland, probably, yes.
Also, entirely immaterial to Trump’s case
This dictionary topic comes up again and again, so I might as well comment here. Dictionary definitions—even in the OED which announces editing on historical principles—are abstracted from whatever context of creation pertained to the texts a lexicographer relied upon.
Accurate insight into contextual meaning is critically reliant on specificity about time, place, purpose, and authorship—a specificity requirement more demanding than any dictionary definition typically satisfies. Perhaps it is for that reason that you will search far and wide among the works of first-rate historians without finding much reliance on dictionaries, including period dictionaries.
To go to a dictionary is to take a step away from historical relevance. It is an attenuation of methods to better grasp period-specific meanings in historical context, not an enhancement of them.
When I see lawyers reach for period dictionaries as case authorities—as they so often do—I take it as a field mark which points toward incomprehension about what history requires of those who attempt to understand it.
This is an excellent comment.
You are reading a book, today, and encounter an unfamiliar word. Is consulting a current dictionary not a reasonable approach to determine what that word means?
It's 1776, and James Madison reads an unfamiliar word. Is it reasonable for him to consult a then-current dictionary?
It's the present, and we're reading something Madison wrote and are unsure what a word means. Why is consulting the dictionary he would have used not a reasonable approach? To be sure, then or now, context can matter, and one should consider whether some particular usage might be specialized or otherwise non-standard.
But 'To go to a dictionary is to take a step away from historical relevance' seems a few bridges too far.
Absaroka, thanks for your questions.
It’s 1776, and James Madison reads an unfamiliar word. Is it reasonable for him to consult a then-current dictionary?
No. The first generally acknowledged American dictionary was not published until 1806, by Noah Webster. Time's arrow never points back.
You can be certain no American dictionary influenced Madison during the founding era. Nor, prior to Webster, did any American dictionary take contemporaneous cues from Madison's influence on language. I do not know whether that might have happened later, or by lexicographers studying Madison in retrospect after his death, but it seems reasonable, even likely.
What would not be reasonable would be to take any such later dictionary as a better source on the meanings of founding era words than can be had by studying the founding era on the basis of modern archives. Those contain more comprehensive records than were available to any lexicographer during the 19th century. And they come not only with definitions, but with context of creation and syntax which dictionaries can only hint at or omit altogether.
You could of course assume that Madison as an educated person might have accessed Samuel Johnson's dictionary, to discover what words meant as interpreted from the vicinity of Glasgow or London, during the interval between 1746 and 1755. Or, with Johnson's later-published 1773 edition, possibly have found a revision or two. But still little or nothing in American context, as Noah Webster himself later complained.
You can be certain, for instance, that any inflections of the meaning of "insurrection," or of the meaning of, "rebellion," which had their sources in Shay's Rebellion did not find their way into any dictionary, English or American, during the founding era. Given that Shay's Rebellion is counted by historians as notably influential during the Constitutional Convention, that ought to illustrate at least somewhat my point about approximate-period-contemporary dictionaries as dodgy historical sources.
More historically relevant sources for the meanings of those words in founding era American context are available from records associated with the Convention itself. Those are extensive. They even include records compiled during the Convention, but published years later by Madison—a lapse of time which has famously raised interpretive questions of its own.
It’s the present, and we’re reading something Madison wrote and are unsure what a word means. Why is consulting the dictionary he would have used not a reasonable approach?
Taking the question for the sake of argument, have you shown Madison used any dictionary, let alone the one you consult? If not, why ask a question under the historical rubric, "MAKING STUFF UP?" History written in what might be termed the historical presumptive, such as, "he would have used," is almost always taken as unreasonable.
However plausible you might presume your question to be, if you ask it without a predicate to validate it, you fly right past the only task historical research is properly purposed to perform—to disclose what happened. Any answer you get to your presumptive query will be on even par with any other outlandish speculation about the past. You literally have no idea whether what you are talking about ever occurred.
Worse, you could be onto something, and still be mistaken in a another way. What if, unverifiably by you, Madison did have a dictionary, and consulted it? You do not know which it was. Was it one of the many already-outdated and sometimes farcical dictionaries which preceded Johnson's? Or, more subtly, was it an English dictionary taken to be reliable about political terms, but written with no notion of the context of politics under America's Articles of Confederation—as it hypothetically turns out, a political system unfamiliar to the English lexicographer who compiled the dictionary?
Or, what if you, today, choose a dictionary you think a likely candidate to inform you about the meanings of words during the founding era, and it turns out to be a dictionary which, unknown to you, Madison had perused in a bookstore, laughed at, and rejected? Would any historical analysis you wrote in reliance on your mistaken dictionary choice be worth having? Would it be worth staking consequential legal policy analysis on? How could you know? If someone asserted your analysis was unfounded, what research would you have to do to disprove that?
Fair enough; but note the post you originally responded to:
"Noah Webster’s dictionary from 1860 defined “insurrection”"
discussing the meaning of the 14th amendment. 1860 is somewhat later than 1806.
"You could of course assume that Madison as an educated person might have accessed Samuel Johnson’s dictionary, to discover what words meant as interpreted from the vicinity of Glasgow or London, during the interval between 1746 and 1755."
If that's the dictionary in general use in America in 1776, then it is the appropriate dictionary to use for insight into word usage in 1776.
People can of course use words in non standard ways. If an entry in Jefferson's diary says 'I ate ate apple today', how do you know he ate an apple? After all, perhaps he idiosyncratically uses 'apple' to refer to what the rest of us call a 'persimmon'. That would be equally true if a neighbor told me the same thing today - the neighbor might be using non-standard terminology. We can never be sure!
But that way lies madness - we would be condemned to live forever in the Tower of Babel. That can't be right.
(of course, when you say 'don't use dictionaries', perhaps that is just your idiosyncratic way of saying 'it's good to use dictionaries', in which case we agree!)
People can of course use words in non standard ways. If an entry in Jefferson’s diary says ‘I ate ate apple today’, how do you know he ate an apple?
Absaroka, not the problem at issue. The problem at issue is that there are zero ways to put text into a single context which applies uniformly over time. You are present-minded, so you apply present-day contextual standards when you evaluate Jefferson’s context. You apply present-day context to every source, from every place and every time, because being exclusively present-minded, you have no other tools to inform your conclusions.
Sometimes that works better than others. When you get it wrong, you encounter no feedback to warn you—except rarely from folks who know more about such pitfalls than you do. Those you are determined to keep at arms length, as you show with your comments here. You do not like to encounter implications that historically ignorant arguments are illegitimate bases to make consequential present-day legal and policy decisions.
Allow a minor illustration. You find a Massachusetts Puritan’s diary reporting a problem. His neighbor’s cattle have been getting into his garden. Which would you suppose were the more likely intruders, pigs or chickens?
Recognizing that is a question likely to take modern readers by surprise, I also recognize that those modern readers are more likely to conclude that they have a minor problem—a problem which relates to changeable word meanings—instead of a more general problem to supply contextually relevant evidence for all distinctions they propose to rely upon. Still less are they likely to conclude they have encountered evidence to suggest they are tone-deaf to the entire culture they endeavor to understand. Nor is there any hope they will recognize that they share with alleged experts resorting to period dictionaries, or even the most sophisticated corpus linguistic tools, the same disability—that present-minded analytical context undermines every attempted conclusion that self-regarding proprietors of historical shortcuts can employ.
Those tools remain next to useless, despite potential to slightly advance historically-related insight. They remain useless because the people receiving the results lack training necessary to make constructive analytical use of them. And of course not one of those present-minded folks would be able to explain why this, by you, delivers by implication a key to insight into all those failures:
But that way lies madness – we would be condemned to live forever in the Tower of Babel. That can’t be right.
No. The fact that you remain confused does not require a biblical affliction to account for it. You are not condemned to chaos, only to toil. There is a reliable, if laborious, way to recognize existing order which you have misconstrued.
To do it, you must learn what it took for those in the time and place under study to make out of their own experience whatever it took to impose a particular sense of order. The order which suited them. It is a method simple and reliable in concept. It proves arduous and subtle in execution; it is not widely practiced.
How is it done? Scholarship. A scholar can take the time necessary to give himself what amounts to the education a well-educated person had available in that time and place. And then go on to explore from available records of every kind the practical, commercial, legal, religious, and subsistence practices which characterized the place and time.
After years invested to transform himself into a sort of place-specific, time-specific jack-of-all classes, the scholar arrives at a state of insight sufficient to invoke at will a cognitive context in accord with the one which prevailed. That will substitute for, and exclude at least for professional purposes, the present-minded cognitive context which the scholar must continue to hold at bay, lest it frustrate determination to keep the past free of inadvertently smuggled in modern artifacts.
When that has been accomplished, contextual mysteries seem almost to vanish. Or at least take a new surprising form. The surprise is that when anything related to the study in question slips inadvertently into a present-minded context, it produces the same jolt of surprise in the scholar that a sudden time-travel trip to our time would inflict on a native of the study period.
Language itself, without regard for any changed or specialized meanings, gives time-distinctive voice. Scholars trained as I have described tend to recognize instantly when they encounter impostures. They recognize as intrusive particular syntactical patterns which shift with time, when they show up in a wrong-time context. To someone who spent a decade or two editing Ben Franklin’s papers, a modern voice professing ersatz Franklin sounds instantly ridiculous. Present-minded readers would not likely notice a difference, which is why the impostures exist, and have become commonplace.
The only problem with the scholarly method—which tends to be a problem for the present-minded, but not for the scholars who use it—is that mentally enforced separation of past and present inconveniences any purpose except to discover accurately what happened in the past. The notion to mine the past for information useful to advance present-minded policy questions, or to decide controversies in today’s courts of law, becomes all but impossible to satisfy.
However, that does not happen because the methods of scholarship prohibit it. It happens because almost no one in the past gave a moment’s thought to today, and if they had, none could have anticipated what happened between then and now. So to the present-minded, there is almost never anything useful in the past to be found by scholarship now. All the scholars can reliably report is what happened.
Now do 'why scholars can look at any source except the dictionaries of the time'.
Now do ‘why scholars can look at any source except the dictionaries of the time’.
First, scholars can look wherever they like. They learn by experience that dictionaries are less helpful sources than almost everything else they have at their command. That is why dictionaries get less attention from history scholars, but are catnip to others who lack training to access more-informative sources.
Second, for a history scholar, there is a kind of circularity problem with dictionaries. The scholar tries to distill nuance from a text written by some notable person, found in particular context, at a particular place and time, in association with a specific historical event of interest. Turns out that a lexicographer decades later decides that same notable person looks like an authoritative author, good to cite for a definition. Why should the scholar prefer to his own carefully targeted insight the less-relevant expertise a lexicographer's less-contextually-informed effort delivered?
Third, lawyers are accustomed to think of lexicographers as authorities, but for some reason seem to esteem less actual historical scholars. That is peculiar, but maybe understandable. To make a witness of a long-dead lexicographer, all a lawyer has to do is wave a book around. The historical scholar chooses what to say, and can be cross examined.
Fourth, buying a book is an easier choice. A lawyer can buy them all, peruse them, and bring to court the book the lawyer likes best. If asked to choose the most promising witness among a lineup of historians, few lawyers would have even a clue how to begin.
Fifth, the notion, "dictionaries of the time," is crudely coarse grained. On all questions pertaining to dictionary influence on historical figures doing interesting things, historical standards insist that time-traveling information from the future is right out. So every dictionary source to be cited as influential must pre-date, not post-date the events studied.
The separate question whether retrospective lexicographers enjoy an advantage to convey to us more-accurate meanings than can be understood now by archival study of original records I already answered. They do not.
Compared to a modern university archives of historical papers, a lexicographer of founding-era meanings who worked in, for instance, 1806 would be at a disadvantage. For instance, meanings derived from Benjamin Franklin's writings would be of special interest to anyone studying the founding era. Few if any figures were more broadly informed, or similarly influential. But a scholar (or lexicographer) working in 1806 had almost nothing from Franklin to go on.
As it happened, Franklin's papers were not much available to anyone until a private collection was donated to Yale circa the 1960s. Work to curate and publish that collection is only now drawing to a close. That examples the general rule that historical collections tend to be especially sparse during the first lifetime or so following events, and then tend to grow continuously for at least decades, and likely for centuries.
Sixth, the coarse-grain problem is even more pronounced with regard to distances and cultural separations. To assure insight into meaning, you ideally get your context at the place of interest, using documents created at that time. Contextually-derived meanings from scholars who do that should generally be preferred over those from lexicographers from across the sea, working two or more decades in the past.
You are reading a book, today, and encounter an unfamiliar word. Is consulting a current dictionary not a reasonable approach to determine what that word means?
It depends on context, as they say, in a number of ways.
What are the consequences of my interpretation? If they are serious, for me, others, or the country, then it's only a first step. I have to dig deeper. lexicographers are not gods. Look at their sources, check other sources to see if the dictionary is accurate. Read the relevant passage with an eye to how the word is used, there and elsewhere by the same author, etc. Maybe it's intended sarcastically. Maybe it's a regional usage not mentioned by the dictionary, etc.
Now, if you are just reading a novel or a newspaper article you wouldn't worry about any of that, but when there are serious matter involved you should.
"then it’s only a first step"
Sure, no disagreement there, or with the rest of your paragraph. That's why I said 'To be sure, then or now, context can matter, and one should consider whether some particular usage might be specialized or otherwise non-standard' up-thread.
I was disagreeing with "To go to a dictionary is to take a step away from historical relevance" - I don't see checking the relevant dictionary as a wrong first step.
As usual, that's a lot of words to say that you'll only pay attention to the facts you like.
Steve Lathrop, we are dealing with an avowedly origionalist Supreme Court. Contemporaneous dictionaries are a fair, useful, and appropriate resource to review in asceratining the orgional public meaning of terms. You can deabte how much weight to give the Webster's definition of "insurection." But the drafters specifially used that term. It cannot be written out of the 14th Amednment by defining it to mean no more and no less than "rebellion."
Rev. O.T. Medal, see my reply to Absaroka above.
On your point, it is indeed an avowedly originalist Supreme Court. But they pay no more attention to history than you do.
Forget it, Steve, its Insurrection-town.
Its a matter of faith for Somin et al., like believing in the Virgin Birth.
Remember when Republicans claimed to be patriots?
Was that before they claimed to be libertarians?
" The "insurrections or rebellions" contemplated by Section Three must be threats to the government akin to that posed by the U.S. Civil War."
This is perhaps the best explanation I have seen yet -- although I do have to disagree with you about Shay's Rebellion. They were openly talking about an Second American Revolution and had they managed to seize the Federal Arsenal in Springfield, the US Government would have been in serious trouble.
1: It was the ONE place where military weapons were manufactured at the time, and
2: It was the ONE place where they were stored.
Remember that the US didn't have a standing army at the time -- it didn't before the Civil War and the recruits had to be armed -- largely with rifles made at and stored at the Springfield arsenal.
Like Fort Knox, the arsenal was located away from the coast (and above where the Connecticut River is navigable) to make it impossible for a foreign power to seize it, but there'd have been serious problems if Shay's had.
I have no doubt that had they seized those weapons, they'd have marched the 70 miles to Boston and murdered Governor Bowdoin and shut down the General Court (state legislature) much as they had already shut down all the other courts. They were adopting the same tactics which had been used against the British 15 years earlier and bystanders were openly describing this as an imminent civil war.
Bowdoin only stopped Shays with private mercenaries that he and the other rich Boston merchants paid for out of their own pockets -- the militia was siding with Shay's when it was called out. John Hancock probably would have been re-elected Governor (as he was) and that quieted down because Hancock accepted paper money for payment of taxes, and got rid of the corrupt tax collectors (see Ilya's cartoon).
Shay's Rebellion wouldn't be a threat to the US Government *today* but back then, I argue that it very much was.
Yes. Not to relitigate Shay's Rebellion, but it's the sort of thing that is well short of the civil war, but still above the threshold for Section 3. (IMHO.)
It in part led to the Constitution. And the Whiskey Rebellion was a show of force by the new government to make sure everyone understood a new sheriff was in town and everyone should stop their asshattery…which worked up until January 6, 2021…a pretty good run. 😉
Volokh made a pretty obvious mistake when he developed the reasoning for Heller because he stated that if the Federal government can call forth the state militias to serve the Federal government then how can the state militias be a check on the Federal government?? That’s a mistake because the Constitution gives the states the power to appoint officers and so the Civil War shows that the states can very easily appoint officers that will choose their state over the Federal government if it comes down to that.
One minute after he shot Ashli Babbitt, the only shot fired in the Capitol that day, Officer Byrd radioed: ""405-B, we got shots fired in the lobby. We got shot, shots fired in the lobby of the House chamber. Shots are being fired at us and we're prepared to fire back at them. We have guns drawn."
You can hear his radio call here:
https://epochjoe.podbean.com/e/radio-transmissions-by-capitol-police-lt-michael-byrd/
He lied and then the Capitol Police and the January 6th committee helped cover up those lies. To pretend to be against police brutality and unnecessary police officer shootings, Reason writers lack any curiosity in regards to the truth of what happened on January 6th. They just take the word of CNN and an extremely one-sided Congressional committee.
More information is available in the article below. I'm glad a suit has been filed on behalf of Babbitt husband. Maybe at last the truth will come out. Of course, democrats and the writers here will not read it, but at least the family will know more of what happened.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/exclusive-after-shooting-ashli-babbitt-capitol-police-lt-made-false-radio-report-lawsuit-5558897
The protest at the Capitol was turned into a riot and that was caused by the LEOs at the Capitol that day. However, it was not an insurrection.
What does “ste” mean?? That was Ashtray Babbitt’s last word. If you figure out what that word means then I think you can crack the case.
What does STFU mean? If you figure out what that word means you might have at least one friend in the world.
Sometimes I don’t like guns…but other times I’m thankful someone invented them.
Did you see Ashtray’s husband’s little hottie spare wife?? Good for him!!
CindyF, I doubt an assertion will work as a legal defense that the Capitol invaders should have got the matador treatment, and been waved into the House chamber.
A matador waves a cape to attract the bull and direct him in the direction the matador wants him to go. It's a prelude to killing the bull in the process. Your analogy is both incoherent and inapposite, which is sadly exactly what we expect from you.
February and a SC decision can't get here soon enough.
I’m so pissed at this NFL season. I can’t believe I watched an entire season and it ended like this. Wtf??
Has anyone ever been charged, tried and convicted of insurrection against the United States?
Asking for a friend???
No, just asking.
Since the Insurrection Act became law in 1807 (under T. Jefferson) it has been invoked 28 times (per wiki). So has anyone been charged, tried and convicted of insurrection?
(Deleted)
Sooo, you want to participate in an insurrection?? But you don’t want to get assraped in prison if you get caught??
The purpose of the Insurrection Sct of 1807 was to allow the use of the armed forces, including the National Guard, in cases of insurrection or rebellion. It's not a criminal statute.
I believe the Confiscation Act of 1862 was the first time that insurrection was actually made a specific crime. There were deep concerns (https://www.mackinac.org/1278; see also https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=658) about the confiscation-related provisions of that law, and even its 1861 predecessor that was more explicitly a war-powers law. The operative section of the Second Confiscation Act is now codified at 18 USC 2383, and has been revised in mostly editorial ways since it was passed. A number of people discuss that legislative history, but none mention any convictions under it, so I doubt there have been any.
Trump has been treating it as an insurrection, albeit an unsuccessful one. He has repeatedly said that what the rioters wanted to do should have been accomplished.
Has anyone been charged, tried and convicted of insurrection?
Not relevant.
There’s no dispute here. Everyone knows what he was trying to do, and he’s never disowned it, in fact quite the opposite.
So when will Jack Smith bring a superseding indictment charging insurrection?
Not relevant.
So, in 217 years since enacted it has been invoked 28 time and you can't point to anyone charged, tried and convicted and that makes it irrelevant?
Um, yes.
Keep asking this question while you dodge the real issue. It is painfully obvious that the goal of both the rioters and Trump was to stop the formal certification of Biden's victory. The Electoral Votes had been cast weeks before, and despite the outrageous claims made by Rudy and Sidney Powell and others, no one with any authority to deal with fraud was finding those claims to be credible. There were around a dozen Senators and around 150 Representatives saying that they planned to contest the EVs of at least some states. Pence unilaterally refusing to count Electoral Votes certified by state authorities was their last hope, and he had told Trump he wouldn't do that. He refused again the last time he talked to Trump that morning before Trump made his speech.
If it wasn't an insurrection, then what was it? None of what I've laid out is in dispute, as far as I can tell. There was no chance on Jan. 6, 2021 for Trump to remain in office legally. Any effort to make Trump stay in office was going to be an illegal attempt to retain power. Insurrection or otherwise, Trump failed to respect the Constitution and will of the people, which should not be surprising since he never did before that.
Well put.
"It is painfully obvious that the goal of both the rioters and Trump was to stop the formal certification of Biden’s victory."
Well, sure. And in 2000 Gore was trying to stop the formal certification of Bush's victory in Florida. In 1960 the EC votes had been cast weeks before.
The difference is that the rioters were attempting to stop it by physical force, Trump by applying political pressure to influence how discretion was exercised.
That makes Trump's approach more akin to Gore in 2000: Politically influencing actors to engage in superficially formal procedures favorable to him.
Very akin, because in both cases the formal procedures would be grossly distorted. Florida law really didn't provide for the recounts the state Supreme court ordered, and the EPC didn't permit how they were conducted. It was a superficially legal process, really just intended to eventually produce a predetermined result.
On January 6th, the intent was for ministerial actors to exercise discretion they didn't properly have, while superficially following the form ordered by law.
Basically the same thing. Yet Democrats will predictably get pissed off if you point out that Gore was trying to steal the election.
The criminal definition of insurrection and definition used by the US constitution are not one and the same.
Similarly, for impeachment the standard is "high crimes and misdemeanors". But a President can be impeached for conduct that doesn't violate criminal law.
Careful Steve, lest the only honorable thing for you when reality hits is follow your forebears into the bathtub with a sword.
I don't think Romans fell on their sword in the bathtub.
No, they sliced their veins open
Either Calabresi is misrepresenting Rubenfeld's point or Rubenfeld gets it wrong.
In general, when a legislature passes a law following occurrence A, they are not merely passing the law targeting A, but they are passing a law against conduct or acts of which A is but one example.
Yes, the amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was prompted by British actions, but after all, at the time of the BoR, the British were no longer in charge. The drafters were made aware of the unacceptability of unreasonable searches and seizures because of British actions and so included a prohibition in the BoR. That is not the same as restricting the amendment's application and scope exclusively to the type of searches and seizures the British conducted.
Good comment.
+1
Obviously.
I think the Colorado Supreme Court got it right.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
Pg 97-102
Apparently everyone is not as sure as you and the SC will decide.
We know how Justice Thomas will rule—whatever his wife orders him to do!! That’s how it works when a wife has that wet ass PUSSY!!!
I disagree. Justice Thomas will vote as his billionaire benefactors prefer, communicated by (most likely) inference or (if necessary) indirect or direct guidance.
That's how he rolls . . . down the highway . . . in that no-money-down-and-no-money-later luxurymobile. As a man of the people. So long as those people are billionaires with private jets, superyachts, luxury resorts, and a record of thoughtful gift-giving.
Carry on, clingers. But only so far as the culture war's winners permit.
Justice Thomas also had Big Dick Energy…so if the RV is a-rocking’…don’t come a-knockin’. WAP and BDE go together like peanut butter and jelly!!
Artie's a good little empty vessel, dutifully and preemptively teeing up the agreed-upon excuse for the expected SCOTUS body check of the actual insurrectionists in the equation.
I pray for your ongoing sanity that the opinion isn't nine-zip.
Let those chips fall where they may. I don't have a strong sense of the legal details or authorities. The most important point is that it is sad that so many disaffected Americans are attracted to an un-American, vainglorious, vulgar, lying narcicissist that these issues must be addressed. Replacement will solve that problem over time -- the solution is already underway -- but it is a waste of time, resources, and national spirit until then.
Ilya 2, Steven 0
The "insurrections or rebellions" contemplated by Section Three must be threats to the government akin to that posed by the U.S. Civil War.
Let's see. Some general gathers some troops, maybe 1500-2000, and marches on Congress, forcing Pence and Congress, at gunpoint, to do what the actual invaders wanted. Does that count, or do we have to wait for a few hundred thousand casualties?
Cool make other stuff up
Sometimes, it pays to not be so smart. Getting Trump thrown off the ballot on a legal technicality isn’t a “win” for anyone.
I was raised by academics, and hoo boy, do I recognize the pattern: the perfect is the enemy of the good. It was exactly this same pattern that our medical geniuses followed when they decided that it was more important to prevent a single direct death from COVID than it was to cause the suffering and lifelong setback of millions of others, including potentially thousands of indirect deaths.
The only correct answer is to let the people decide. There is literally no other way this can be peacefully resolved.
Hawaii and Vermont have the lowest Covid death rates—if states implemented mitigation measures and the public was compliant significantly fewer people died from Covid.
The only correct answer is to let the people decide. There is literally no other way this can be peacefully resolved.
The people decided in November 2020 to elect Biden instead of Trump. Trump and most Republicans did not accept that result. The events of Jan. 6, 2021 were the consequence of that lack of acceptance.
This is the thing about democracy. It only works when the losing side accepts that they lost.
Too many delusional, disaffected, desperate, gullible, low-quality dumbasses on the losing side for that.
RE: "The only correct answer is to let the people decide. There is literally no other way this can be peacefully resolved."
Right! Time to get rid of the Electoral College!
This would be great advice...if the Constitution didn't already prescribe the appropriate course of action. Whether it did will likely be determined by the Supreme Court in due course, and if they agree that it did, there will be no room for implementing "the correct answer", as you view it. None.
The Constitution clearly prescribes disqualification for oathtakers who have committed insurrection.
It does not clearly prescribe that a riot that enters the Capitol must be treated as insurrection in one case, and only one case. (There have been others.)
It does not clearly prescribe that this penalty be invoked by a civil process, rather than criminal.
It does not clearly prescribe that it be invoked by random state level officers.
In short, while it prescribes the penalty, it doesn't mandate that it be applied capriciously with as little due process as can be managed.
The comment I was responding to was effectively about discretion in applying the 14th Amendment (assuming it applies to the instant situation), with the sentiment being expressed that, "gee, doing this could be a real problem, so let's not apply the Constitution".
Once you have conceded that the Constitution "prescribes disqualification for oathtakers who have committed insurrection", such discretion flies out the window.
Let’s be real originalists, just for a minute. Wait while I get my “real-originalist” hat adjusted…. OK, here goes:
RE: “Section Three does apply to future “insurrections or rebellions”, but they have to be analogous in some way to the Civil War. This is the sense in which the words “insurrection or rebellion” are used in the Fourteenth Amendment.”
That cannot be right. If it were, then instead of “insurrections or rebellions”, the authors of 14A would have written “insurrections or rebellions, analogous in some way to the Civil War”. The fact that they only wrote “insurrections or rebellions” indicates that they didn’t care whether or not the future insurrections or rebellions were analogous in any way to the Civil War.
[Takes off “real-originalist” hat; bows to audience]
Of course the events of 01/06/21, in DC, being discussed about Trump supporters was not an insurrection and EVERYONE knows it was not. I'll leave full truth to time and future inspection, as it will be interesting while being damaging too.
Partisan rhetoric abounds to absurd levels fueling further discord and since it comes from one side of the political spectrum, the Left, then it alone is the "Insurrection" against the People of the USA.
Tread not on truth ever again is my advise. Bend neither for or against truth lest desiring correction is sought - be you a lawyer, judge, or other, as history is not on your side.
You cannot be this deluded.
"The "insurrections or rebellions" contemplated by Section Three must be threats to the government akin to that posed by the U.S. Civil War. The January 6, 2001 riot does not even remotely come close to reaching that level."
So, hypothetically, if that argument WERE true, are there ANY historical events outside of the Civil War which would have hypothetically justified disqualifying ANYONE? Either before or after the 14th amendment was actually passed?
American spies and defectors to Germany/Japan during WWII? American Citizens who married into Indian Tribes during the Indian Wars? The Rosenbergs? Benedict Arnold?
The combined intelligence on here did not realize that the date in the article is wrong. Jan. 6 2001? WTF?
“January 6, 2001?” Not the strongest finishing argument.
My working definitions are as follows:
1) An insurrection (or rebellion) is civil turmoil which, in the opinion of the Commander-In-Chief, cannot be quelled by action of law enforcement personnel and instead demands response by Officers and armed military forces under his control but does not require Congressional declaration of war.
2) An insurrectionist is one who fails to prevail in an insurrection.
Your 2. has a certain degree of eloquence about it, but your 1. appears to relate to the Insurrection Act, not to the act of "insurrection", which is referred to in the 14th Amendment.
This is a basic "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Moreover, Calabresi is apparently now invested in the "original intent of Congress" argument. That's a bad look for a so-called textualist.
It's also false. Legislatures pass general prohibitory statutes all the time based on notable events, but intending to sweep in varying types of conduct. E.g.-- in NYC someone punched a horse; there wasn't a criminal law specific enough for the public's taste; the legislature passed a much broader anti-animal cruelty law. Guess what? It applied to dog-kickers just as much as horse-punchers. Go figure.
It is exactly that, yuge bonus points!
Prof Calabresi does nothing more than offer a purely conclusory argument, adducing absolutely zero evidence for his position, aside from an amorphous philosophy on how amendments are inspired.
I’m curious whether anyone knows of any SCOTUS holding that cites the “amendments-right-some-great-wrong” hypothesis upon which Calabresi constructs his entire “argument”.
This is little, if any, more than saying, “This is what I think this term [insurrection] ought to have meant to the framers, ratifiers and general public at the time.”
All the talk of dictionaries reminded me of what I hate most about much originalist jurisprudence—dictionaries today are uniformly descriptive by design. They would be good sources for some evidence of the ordinary public meaning of some phrase today. However, until into the 20th century, dictionaries were predominantly prescriptive. They advocated for particular definitions of words, and there were heated battles between different lexicographers regarding oodles of terms. Using a dictionary from the Founding (especially) or Reconstruction eras does not do what those who do it think it does. For a significant content of any 18th-19th century dictionary in the, they often will not reflect the general understanding and use of a term. They’re simply not reliable sources for evidence of the original public meaning of a given term. Corpus linguistics analysis of large bodies of period writing offer far greater promise there (a good recent example is the Heilpern and Worley draft article that gave Prof Blackman heartburn) .
Ilya Somin, your direct source for DNC talking points.
This is a bit like arguing that the Interstate Commerce Clause only lets the federal government act if goods are in the act of moving across a state border, because that’s the paradigmatic wrong the Framers intended to address. Or freedom of the press would be limited to paper documents produced by applying pressure to force ink onto them.
The paradigmatic wrong approach explains very little about how any other part of the Constitution actually gets interpreted. Why should Section 3 be any different?
The "insurrections or rebellions" contemplated by Section Three must be threats to the government akin to that posed by the U.S. Civil War.
Why 'must' they?
Rather than examine Trump's seditionist acts using a microscope or inquest, Prof. Calabresi uses a telescope to peer off over some imaginary horizon. If those writing the amendment wanted it limited to 'something like the Civil War,' then they'd have put in language that specified or indicated that limitation. Instead they chose a term with a broader, non-temporal, meaning un-tied to a past war between the states.
FFS J6 is not an insurrection. If the DJ could possibly think it could charge J6ers with it they would. That's considering it would go through the most kangaroo court of kangaroos ever.
Somin should quit.