Anti-Trump RINOS and the 14th Amendment
It’s often said that “birds of a feather flock together.” Now, as the 2024 election nears, anti-trump RINOs and radical anti-constitutional Democrats have become birds of a feather, who share a common philosophy:
“Whatever you do, don't let the voters decide.“ In other words, “Invent reasons to make the courts kick Trump off the ballot.”
Left to the voters, neither establishment RINOs in the primaries nor Biden in the general election can fairly defeat Trump. Who else draws 50,000 people to a rural South Carolina town of 3,500 people, when it’s 95° degrees outside?
This they know. Without foul play, Trump steamrolls them all, and it’s not even close.
Enter their 14th Amendment shenanigans, their latest concoction of legal baloney designed to trigger CNN to mention it enough to make low-information voters believe it’s true.
The 14th Amendment, one of three post-Civil War amendments passed in 1866, contains several important legal provisions, including the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Citizenship Clause. But a lesser-known provision in Section 3 of the Amendment -- the “Insurrection Clause,” targeting individuals who have engaged in rebellion or insurrection against the United States, has gotten the RINOs excited.
Under the Insurrection Clause, no person shall hold certain federal or state offices if they previously took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and then engaged in rebellion or insurrection against it. Historically, this applied to Confederate officers who first swore allegiance to the United States, but then launched massive armed attacks upon the United States complete with guns, cannons, and bayonets, and actually spilled oceans of American blood.
Remember Antietam? The bloodiest day in American History? “23,000 soldiers were killed, wounded or missing after twelve hours of savage combat on September 17, 1862.” How about Manassas or Gettysburg?
Never mind the guns, cannons, and bayonets. To get Trump, RINOS and Democrats join together to twist the Insurrection Clause into something opposite of its original meaning.
Anti-Trump RINOs like Asa Hutchinson now spew this ridiculous “Insurrection Clause” argument, as Hutchinson did on August 24 during the first Fox News presidential debate among Republican second-stringers. “More people are understanding the importance of that,” Hutchinson said, “including conservative legal scholars, who say he may be disqualified under the 14th Amendment from being President, again, as a result of the insurrection.”
Then RINO New Hampshire Secretary of State, David Scanlan, “caught wind” of “legal scholars” arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Disqualification Clause prohibits Trump from being on the presidential ballot. Scanlan will be “asking the attorney general's office for their input.”
What a crock.
RINO pining aside, this argument doesn’t hold water.
Let’s start with a bit of logic. In the historical context of the 14th Amendment, insurrection meant Confederate forces waging war on the United States government by force of arms. So, an outside Army attacked the United States, on multiple occasions over four years, from 1861-1865, drawing the blood of thousands of Americans.
The Disqualification Clause, that is the clause disqualifying an insurrectionist from serving in office, addressed waging war by force of arms, not preventing an American President from questioning a fraudulent election, or urging his Vice President to send electors back to the states for clarification.
Consider this: How can the United States government launch an insurrection against itself? Trump on January 6 was President of the United States, the head of the Executive Branch of the United States Government.
Yet RINOs and Democrats want us to believe that Trump could launch an insurrection against himself. That’s how dumb this whole thing is.
Confederates left the government and then attacked it. By contrast, Trump remained in the government, and was the head of the U.S. government. Unlike Lee, he did not attack the U.S. Army at Antietam.
Constitutionally, the President can criticize Congress, and urge members to act in certain ways. This is part of the genius system of checks-and-balances under the Constitution, to prevent one branch from dominating the others. But the government cannot cause an insurrection against itself.
To hear the RINOs and Democrats squeal, you’d think Trump launched a military attack against Congress, declaring himself dictator for life. Perhaps we missed the reports where he ordered the 82nd Airborne to jump into the U.S. Capitol to arrest spineless legislators perpetrating fraud. Conservative media cropped that part out, to protect Trump.
No, Trump tried persuading Congress, and his Vice President, to combat election fraud, which is his right.
Yet Hutchinson and his RINO buddies yell “insurrection.”
Okay Asa… If Trump committed insurrection, why hasn’t Dirty Jack charged him with it?
Federal law specifically criminalizes insurrection. Under 28 U.S.C § 2383, “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.
Query: If Dirty Jack Smith could get away with criminally charging “insurrection,” who thinks he would not bring that charge?
But Trump has not been charged, criminally, with “insurrection.” Not even Jack Smith is that stupid, as such a charge would get thrown out on appeal before it got started.
Though not defined, the clear context of “insurrection” means an armed insurrection against the United States by one who has denounced the United States.
After the Civil War ended in 1865, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, who, unlike Trump, commanded an Army against the United States, was captured and imprisoned for two years, was later released and never tried for treason or insurrection
- Robert E. Lee, the commanding general of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, was not prosecuted for insurrection.
- Former U.S. Vice President John C. Breckinridge, who denounced American citizenship and served as a Confederate general, was not prosecuted for insurrection.
- Confederate General Simon Bolivar Buckner was not prosecuted for insurrection, and later became governor of Kentucky.
- Confederate General Fitzhugh Lee, Robert E. Lee’s nephew, was not prosecuted for insurrection and became governor of Virginia.
So, Jeff Davis, Robert E. Lee, Fitzhugh Lee, Breckenridge, and Buckner, all of whom waged war against the United States, and two who later became governors of their states, (which the 14th Amendment also prohibits) were not charged with insurrection. But RINOS like Hutchinson want to disqualify Trump for “insurrection” because largely unarmed civilians marched to the U.S. Capitol to protest election fraud?
Democrat constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz argues correctly that a fair reading of the text and history of the 14th Amendment makes it clear that the disability provision was intended to apply to those who served the Confederacy during the Civil War.
The Civil War did not repeat itself on January 6, when Trump said “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” “Peacefully and patriotically” are not words of insurrection.
Again, where does Trump say, “Take up your AR-15s, and go attack the Capitol?”
He doesn’t. Instead, it’s “Peacefully and patriotically” and “we’re going to cheer on our brave senators.”
But never mind the facts.
Hypocrites like Hutchison and other RINOs who yap about “insurrection” and treat the Constitution with such dishonest contempt, to grab power for themselves, are the real enemies of the republic.