If you heard a loud squee recently, it came from the collective orgasm the Left had after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled former President Donald Trump could be removed from the 2024 ballot. The reason cited (and gobbled up by every Leftist like a crack whore looking for a fix) was the “insurrection clause” of the 14th Amendment due to what the court found was Trump supporting an insurrection on January 6, 2021.
Even though there’s a lot of debate over whether January 6th constituted an insurrection (short version: it wasn’t), there was no surprise the Left would try this tactic, and it would be a matter of time and/or court shopping to find a bunch of black robed dupes willing to do what Hillary Clinton couldn’t: visit Wisconsin more than once. Oh, and beat Donald Trump.
This gives us a chance to take a closer look at the “insurrection clause” to see what all the hubbub is.
“insurrection clause”
What the Left thinks it means – a provision in the 14th Amendment that disqualifies Donald Trump from running in 2024
What it really means – more proof the Left can’t read the Constitution very well
The 14th Amendment covers a lot of ground, but the part the Left has focused on is Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
And when you consider the Left believes Trump supported the January 6th “insurrection”, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion they did. Too bad that conclusion makes zero sense when the facts are examined.
I’ve discussed the “insurrection” previously, but the TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Reblog) version is January 6th wasn’t an insurrection because it doesn’t fit the legal definition of one. Furthermore, there’s an extreme leap of logic that has to be made to make the argument, namely the “insurrectionists” who were there to support Donald Trump would have needed to be in favor of overthrowing him for it to be an actual insurrection. After all, Trump was still President that day.
But leaps of logic alone aren’t enough to totally mock the Left’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Nah, we also need to mock their inability to read the damn thing from top to bottom. For this, we need to look alllllllll the way down to Article 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The case that originated this clusterfuck of a legal decision is Anderson v. Griswold, which brought up the question of whether Trump could be disqualified from the ballot under Colorado law. Although each state has the power to determine its own election laws, the application of law in this case runs afoul of the very Amendment being used to deny Trump his name on the ballot.
Remember that pesky thing called due process, kids? Yeah, it wasn’t used here. Trump wasn’t a direct party to the lawsuit, but his right to due process was violated in that he was essentially convicted of insurrection without every being charged or convicted of it. The special counsel’s indictment doesn’t even charge him with it! Also, he has yet to be formally charged with it!
So, what did the court do? Determined he was guilty because…fuck if I know.
The reason they gave was a “preponderance of the evidence,” would could mean anything from a hand-written letter on White House stationary signed by Trump saying “I’m going to incite an insurrection today, and it will be the best insurrection ever,” to the court not wanting mean tweets anymore. As of yet, I don’t think we’ve seen the evidence the court referred to, and I’m tempted to say we’re not gonna because that might expose the entire ruling for the farce it most certainly is.
Back to the point about due process. Insurrection is a federal crime, which means only the government can bring the charges. Since that hasn’t happened, the Colorado Supreme Court wouldn’t have the standing to bring the charges, and without there being an actual charge or conviction, there can be no application of the 14th Amendment. And without there being an actual trial (sorry, Ted Lieu), Trump was denied due process. Not even a fucking stupid statement from Colorado’s Secretary of State declaring Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection will overcome that.
How fucked up is this situation? A former Trump lawyer not known for sucking up to him after being let go says the US Supreme Court could rule 9-0 to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling. And this is a guy who has said Trump was “toast” in his criminal indictments.
If this wasn’t bad enough, there’s even some debate over whether the “insurrection clause” would even apply to the Presidency. Given how loosely the law has been interpreted to disqualify Trump, I’m sure the Left would be willing to stretch the logic so much Reed Richards would need a chiropractor. In my non-legalese reading of it, I can see where it could be, but it’s not nearly as much of a slam-dunk as the Left thinks it is. There’s just enough wiggle room for Trump to argue it doesn’t apply (even though the arguments I’ve put forward above about the lack of due process would be stronger, but I’m not advising him).
Then, there’s Section 5:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
What the Colorado Supreme Court did completely ignores this part of the Amendment used to remove Trump in the first place. Congress didn’t disqualify Trump via legislation (and, to the Leftists reading this, this is not an endorsement of such action being taken). It was done by a majority of judges who are clearly incapable of ruling within the confines of the law. Leftists may be okay with it, but wait until it gets turned around on them.
If this decision is upheld by the USSC, it sets precedent, which can be used to disqualify politicians from both sides based solely on a politically-convenient interpretation of “insurrection” and a process where a favorable court decision is more certain than if you asked Hunter Biden if he wants crack for Christmas. Let’s take our good friends from the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest from that bastion of progressive living, Seattle. What the group did and advocated could be considered an insurrection (personally, I don’t, but for the purposes of this sketch let’s say I do). Using the Left’s argument here, no one who participated in CHOP would be eligible to run for public office.
And neither would any of the politicians who supported CHOP.
Then, all it would take would be a Republican with more balls than sense to find a court in Texas that would rule so and before you can say jurisprudence, a good chunk of Democrats would be out of a job. And it would be thanks to the Left’s “Orange Man Bad” rhetoric.
Okay, I’ll admit this sounds too good to be true because, well, Leftists have more double standards than they have genders (this just in…still 2), but it would be detrimental to the country as a whole. It would be weaponizing the legal system to get what an ideologically-driven segment wants. Or, as the Left calls it, Tuesday.
Regardless, the “insurrection clause” being used in Anderson v. Griswold shows a level of desperation on the Left because they know Puddin’ Head Joe is slightly more popular than an anal cavity search done by Willie “Giant Hands” McStuffins, and his accomplishments on issues that really matter to the people are sparse at best. He can’t run on the economy (but he can run from it), foreign policy, or any of the kitchen table issues that Joe Six Pack and his family worry about on the daily. But at least he can run on being the first Administration to hire incompetent and dishonest trans people, amirite????
To try to curtail a possible Trump 2024 victory, the Left counted on the courts to eliminate him from the running before the caucuses and primaries could begin. If the High Court (as opposed to the court in Colorado who appeared to be high when they rendered this dumbfuck decision) rules according to the law, there should be no doubt it will get overturned. If they rule according to political ideology, it will get overturned most likely, but it will have the stink of partisanship all over it and the Left will redouble their efforts to expand the court.
And, yes, my irony meter overloaded after typing that.
In the end, it should be noted there’s a reason the “insurrection clause” is rarely used and/or prosecuted: because there’s a fine line between legitimate protest and insurrection. Redressing grievances with the government is protected by the First Amendment. Acting out in a way that threatens the very fabric of our government isn’t. To conflate the two for the purposes of electoral victory is dishonest, detrimental, and a dick move.
If you read this before Christmas, I wish you the happiest of holiday seasons.
And if you read this after Christmas, I wish you the happiest of post-holiday sales.
