By Curt_Anderson December 29, 2023 2:58 pm Category: Law (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

Insurrection, an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt. An insurrection may facilitate or bring about a revolution, which is a radical change in the form of government or political system of a state, and it may be initiated or provoked by an act of sedition, which is an incitement to revolt or rebellion.

In the United States, insurrection against the authority of the federal government is a crime under 18 U.S. Code §2383.

§2383. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147 .)

Cited and related links:

1. uscode.house.gov
2. britannica.com

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on December 30, 2023 3:06 am Yeah, Curt. OD posted that not so long ago. The Doddering Old Fool's as guilty of that as is Trump. by oldedude on December 30, 2023 8:04 am I find it disheartening that the sheep always go back to the "insurrection" which would be fine. EXCEPT you need to convict him first. In a court of LAW, not in your TDS mind. When that happens, you're free to do (most) anything you want. Again, I predict neither pedojoe or trumpster will make it to the ballot. by Ponderer on December 30, 2023 8:33 am od, he needs to be convicted of it to be put in prison for it and/or otherwise denied his life, liberty, or property. He does not need to be convicted of engaging in insurrection to be kept off the ballot. He has no civil right to be on a ballot for an office he is disqualified from holding since he obviously and undeniably engaged in actions that disqualified him. by HatetheSwamp on December 30, 2023 8:35 am Exactly. They want to keep Trump off the ballot because he's a criminal but want to pretend that his crime of insurrection ain't no crime. Curious. by Curt_Anderson on December 30, 2023 9:23 am “They want to keep Trump off the ballot because he's a criminal but want to pretend that his crime of insurrection ain't no crime. Curious.”. —HtS Dang, you two are dunderheads! Trump should not be president because he is a criminal. A criminal history does not preclude somebody from running for president. Insurrection is a crime. Trump has not been charged with insurrection…yet. Trump should not be on the ballot because he does not meet the constitutional requirements to be president, namely, he engaged insurrection. Since you obviously missed that point reread…slowly…the third section of the 14th amendment. by HatetheSwamp on December 30, 2023 9:53 am Curt, Trump has been charged with insurrection... and not convicted... by the United States Congress. Trump should not be on the ballot because he does not meet the constitutional requirements to be president, namely, he engaged insurrection.. Bill of Rights, there, Curt. Innocent until proven guilty. Ain't!!!!!? Since you obviously missed that point reread…slowly…the third section of the 14th amendment. I did. Same as always. It mentions to whom it applies... without mentioning President. Now, you?, read Section 5. by Curt_Anderson on December 30, 2023 10:32 am HtS, what part of “ or hold any office, civil or military” don’t you understand? What the framers said about the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause: Analysis It's also worth noting that there was just a single reference in the Senate debate to the fact that the president and vice president were not explicitly mentioned in Howard's draft as "officer(s) of the United States," the way members of Congress and state officials had been itemized in the text. Would the disqualification clause of the amendment not cover the top posts in the executive branch? "Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson. Vermont's Justin Morrill jumped in to clarify. "Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point. abcnews.go.com by HatetheSwamp on December 30, 2023 11:16 am Interesting, Curt. Re: In 2024, the originalists on the Supreme Court will likely seek to determine whether the ratifiers could have had it in mind 158 years ago that Sec. 3 might not only be applied to the "late insurrection," as the House-passed version originally had it, but also to any other rebellion that might later take place. In all of this, pb has done his derndest, to understand this in real world terms. That's why pb relies, for example, on legal commentators who have been reliable in their analysis of pending legal issues. pb rolls his eyes over most of what he sees, reads and hears. I'm impressed with your article and I've quoted what I think is its most critical paragraph and underlined it's most important words...IMO. Let me just say this about that and let me make this perfectly clear. This Court's central point of reference to the Constitution is that Article 1... Congress. To this Court, the legislative branch is first among equals. Abortion, for example, will be settled "by the people and their elected representatives." The EPA can't do what Congress allows. Was J6, as your article describes, an "any other rebellion?" The answer?, according to Congress? No. Trump was impeached over the issue of leading an insurrection and, by the authority of the legislative branch...the Article 1 Branch... he was not convicted. Real world? Hope away. Please. Dream of an election in which the Supreme Court won't allow the name of the candidate preferred by Republican voters to appear on the ballot. But, Congress has its chance to declare that Trump led a rebellion... it chose not to. scotusblog.com by oldedude on December 30, 2023 12:26 pm Dang, you two are dunderheads! Man! I thought you actually understood (finally) what we were talking about... But no,😞 You're either too stupid, or too TDS to get this. Trump should not be president because he is a criminal. What you say is your "opinion" and not worth the s*** coming out of it. I don't disagree with the "feeling" he is, but lawsuits don't count (we're looking for CRIMINAL Court, not CIVIL Court) A criminal history does not preclude somebody from running for president. Insurrection is a crime. Agree, something I have a problem with as I noted already. Trump has not been charged with insurrection…yet. You're correct and is this issue. Text of the Fifth Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. So if you are taking him off the ballot, is that a restriction on his freedom? Is that a restriction on his liberty. Is it restricting his ability to run for an office where he can legally apply for? Again, If he hasn't been charged, tried, and found guilty, you're pissing up a rope, trying not to get wet. I would argue absolutely. Trump should not be on the ballot because he does not meet the constitutional requirements to be president, namely, he engaged insurrection. If he did, then why isn't he charged and have his "DUE PROCESS" (a mandated CONSTITUTIONAL Obligation of the Government) embedded (meaning then he is a criminal that was charged and tried (ergo, his due process was protected), and found guilty. At that point, he isn't eligible to run for any of the offices listed. britannica.com by HatetheSwamp on December 30, 2023 12:57 pm OD, As is often the case, I'm beginning to doubt Curt's sincerity. More and more, as he posts about the ballot stuff, he's becoming a caricature of po. There's serious lynch mob thinking in what he's been posting. And, I'd a thought Curt'd be above that. I dunno. by Curt_Anderson on December 30, 2023 1:09 pm OD, A person doesn't need to be a convicted criminal to be a criminal. Consult your dictionary. Committing crimes or being involved in a criminal conspiracy meets the definition of "criminal". (Cornell) Several of Trump's co-conspirators have already plead guilty in Georgia. It is not unusual for courts to decide that a candidate is ineligible to run for office. For example, in the past election a court ruled that Nicholas Kristof cannot run for governor, even though he is a native Oregonian and owns a house here. (CNN) You seem overly concerned about restrictions of Trump's freedoms or liberties. Our freedoms and liberties are not absolute. You and I are not at liberty to freely rape, murder and rob. That's because even if those activities are on our pursuit of happiness bucket list, they collide with the rights of others not be raped, murdered or robbed. For the umpteenth time, the 14th doesn't require a candidate to be convicted of insurrection to be disqualified. It says engaged in insurrection. Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederate States, was later elected a US Senator but not allowed to serve because he engaged in an insurrection. He was never convicted of being an insurrectionist. (Wikipedia) As a voter and citizen I have the right not to have constitutionally ineligible candidates running for and holding public office. law.cornell.edu cnn.com en.wikipedia.org by oldedude on December 30, 2023 2:28 pm A person doesn't need to be a convicted criminal to be a criminal. Consult your dictionary. Committing crimes or being involved in a criminal conspiracy meets the definition of "criminal". (Cornell) Several of Trump's co-conspirators have already plead guilty in Georgia. Simply put. You're wrong. A guilty plea is an admittance of guilt (really? Are you really that simmple?), thusly the term GUILTY PLEA. In EVERY case, you are "assuming that these people do not have DUE PROCESS. How do we know if they were involved in a criminal conspiracy or other "criminal" activity. THEY HAVE A TRIAL. NOTHING IS PROVEN UNTIL THE TRIAL SAYS SO. OMFG😞. With this, comes the presumption of innocence even prior to arrest. The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt. You are accusing trumpster of a crime. Period. You've said this like you vote. Early and often. You can "say" or believe in your TDS mind that he is. No one cares about your feelings. They don't matter until due process is complete. He still has the same rights as someone that murders and rapes. You have "evidence" great. The evidence against a rapist and murderer are things like DNA (inside the victim, and maybe under the victim's nails), fingerprints, blood at the scene, or on their clothing, etc. They are still presumed INNOCENT. A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. As such, a prosecutor is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime if that person is to be convicted. To do so, proof must be shown for every single element of a crime IN THE COURT OF LAW.😱 en.wikipedia.org Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page