#Armed Insurrection

[ridenwithbiden]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Not communists, as it turns out, but MAGA Republicans.

* * * *

Disqualifying Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

          Last week, I criticized a scholarly article by two law school professors (William Baude and Michael Paulsen) who contend that state election officials can unilaterally disqualify Trump from ballots based on their independent “duty” to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Section 3 provides that no person may hold federal office if—after having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution���they

shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

          After I wrote my piece last week (which is here: The only path forward . . . . - by Robert B. Hubbell (substack.com)), Professor Laurence Tribe and retired federal court of appeals Judge Michael Luttig published an article in The Atlantic that praised and endorsed the article by Baude and Paulsen. The article by Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig is here: The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again. (The article should be accessible to all.)

          While Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig agree with Baude and Paulsen, they admit a practical consideration that is not front and center in the article by Baude and Paulsen, who emphasize unilateral action by state officials unbounded by due process and the First Amendment. Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig write,

As a practical matter, the processes of adversary hearing and appeal will be invoked almost immediately upon the execution and enforcement of Section 3 by a responsible election officer.

          Dozens of readers sent me copies of the article in The Atlantic and asked me to comment on (read: dispute) the legal analysis by Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig.

          Come on, people! I am not that stupid! You will not bait me into disagreeing with Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig on legal matters.

          Instead, I will change the terms of the debate.

          I believe that attempting to enforce Section 3’s disqualification clause by urging state officials to unilaterally and variously block Trump from the ballot (or not) is a bad idea from a political standpoint.

          Why?

          I believe there is no scenario in which Trump will be disqualified from enough state ballots to preemptively determine the outcome of the election in the electoral college. The most likely result is that Trump will be disqualified in a few deep blue states that he has no chance of winning in any event. But if he thereafter loses an election in which he has been barred from the ballot in a handful of states controlled by Democrats, tens of millions of Americans will believe that the election result is illegitimate. Without agreeing that Republicans would be correct in their view of the illegitimacy of the election, a reasonable observer should be able to see why Trump supporters would feel aggrieved in that scenario.

          After the bruising attack on the legitimacy of the 2020 election, inviting disputes over the 2024 election based on a contested legal theory does not seem to be the best political path forward.

          As before, I remind readers that I believe Trump engaged in insurrection and should be disqualified from holding the office of president and that Section 3 is still operative today. But as much as I believe those premises, we must recognize they are not shared by tens of millions of Americans. Setting aside the legal analysis about whether Trump engaged in insurrection, let’s examine whether there is a solid footing for a political consensus on that point such that unilateral enforcement of Section 3 would not damage the legitimacy of the 2024 election. I won’t bury the lead: I do not believe that such a political consensus exists.

          Let’s begin by recognizing that, as applied to Trump, Section 3 includes two elements that must be satisfied: (1) That the events of January 6th constitute a rebellion or insurrection, and (2) that Trump “engaged” in that rebellion/insurrection or gave “aid or comfort to the enemies” of the United States.

          Those who oppose the disqualification bar would say that the question of whether Trump has engaged in insurrection has been answered in the negative by Congress and the DOJ, for the following reasons:

          The Senate acquitted Trump in his second impeachment of the charge of “incitement to insurrection.” In so doing, the Senate refused to apply the very remedy that proponents of the Section 3 bar would nonetheless apply.

          The January 6th Committee recommended that the DOJ indict Trump for engaging in insurrection or rebellion in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 (Rebellion or insurrection). See also DOJ Referrals | Jan-6.com.

          Although the DOJ did indict Trump on other grounds recommended by the January 6th Committee, it has not indicted Trump for “rebellion or insurrection” under Section 2383, as recommended by the J6 Committee. A reasonable observer should be able to see why Trump supporters would feel that the DOJ’s apparent decision not to charge Trump with “rebellion or insurrection” means that—in the view of the DOJ— January 6th was not an insurrection and Trump is not guilty of having engaged in insurrection on January 6th.

          Indeed, the DOJ has not indicted anyone for “rebellion or insurrection” under Section 2383. True, some defendants have been indicted and convicted for “seditious conspiracy” under Section 18 USC § 2384, which legal commentators would rightly note is effectively “the same thing” as planning an “insurrection or rebellion.” Fair point. But the DOJ has not indicted Trump for seditious conspiracy. As before, a reasonable observer should be able to see why Trump supporters would feel that the DOJ’s apparent decision not to charge any defendants (including Trump) with “rebellion or insurrection” means that—in the view of the DOJ— January 6th was neither.

          Against that backdrop, arguing that state election officials should nonetheless unilaterally conclude—as a matter of constitutional certainty—that Trump engaged in rebellion or insurrection on January 6th is a proposition ripe with the potential for political strife.

          And we haven’t even begun to discuss the impracticalities of urging secretaries of state to bar Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. Republicans hold the secretary of state seat in twenty-six states, including the swing states of Georgia and Pennsylvania. Democrats hold the secretary of state seat in twenty-two states, including the swing states of Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada.

          We cannot assume that each of the secretaries of state has the authority under state law to determine which candidates appear on the ballot. One reader wrote to the Washington State Secretary of State urging them to bar Trump from the ballot and received this reply:

Political parties submit the candidate names to appear on the Presidential Primary ballot. That’s in RCW 29A.56.031. The Office of Secretary of State has no statutory power to evaluate a candidate’s qualifications for the office, which are set in federal law.

          But let’s assume for argument that the secretaries of state in the four swing states of Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada bar Trump from the ballot in those states. If that happens, Trump would have no realistic chance of gaining the electoral votes necessary to be elected president.

          The net result is that four individuals holding the office of secretary of state in four states may decide who will serve as our next president.

          Really?!

          Even if that result is ultimately adjudged to be the correct outcome from a legal standpoint, the question remains whether that is what our democracy needs at this contentious moment in our history. I do not believe it is.

          I have done my best to avoid crossing legal swords with Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig. Indeed, I agree with their ultimate legal conclusions. My point is that their view of the law will be rejected by tens of millions of Americans given the actions by Congress and the inaction by the DOJ described above. The law is not a popularity contest (nor should it be)—but political legitimacy is. Given those facts, I believe it would be a political mistake to follow a strategy with a low probability of electoral success and a high probability for undermining the outcome of the 2024 election. As I wrote last week,

          Here is the point: There is only one way to ensure that Trump does not hold the office of the presidency again: We must beat him decisively at the ballot box. I worry that the emotional energy that readers are investing in a contested legal theory is a distraction and a setup for disappointment.           The argument regarding the “self-enforcing” feature of Section 3 is contested and, in my view, bristling with unintended consequences. Keeping Trump off the ballot is not going to work; and if it does, it will result in retaliatory actions by MAGA secretaries of state. Let’s not go there. Let’s beat Trump at the ballot box. That is the only path forward . . .

          I recognize that many readers will disagree with my views. I have heard from many of you already. I hope that I have convinced you (at least) that the legal theory will be challenged, and that the political fallout will be substantial. If you nonetheless support the effort, that is obviously a legitimate choice with substantial legal support. But, please, let’s recognize the political realities of attempting to enforce Section 3 through state election officials applying their own views about whether Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[fluentisonus]

part of the problem is that a lot of hugo's politics are really well thought out & considered & good but then some of them are like. entirely vibes-based to the point of feeling muddled & inconsistent & even straight up Bad sometimes. which is annoying

[gotyouanyway]

ik the words chaotic and insane are way overused to describe characters but i don’t think i’ve ever meant them more than i do for andred

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[vaspider]

I cannot stress enough how important it is that whatever you think of anything else, Trump Cannot Be President Again.

The "rip apart democracy and install an autocrat" group was not Ready for him in 2016. They didn't think he'd win.

They're ready now. They're teeing up for a second Trump president. Whatever your favorite current Thing, it would be worse under Trump, and it is not an exaggeration to say that they're going to try to make sure that they stay in power forever, by any means necessary.

SCOTUS basically just said, "If Trump sends the Army in to murder protestors, that's okay. If Trump assassinates a political rival with the armed forces of which he is the Commander In Chief, that's an official act, and there's no recourse."

Anything he can even vaguely justify as "an official act" - including installing people in the Justice Department to support his coup, including pressuring his VP to support his coup - is no longer a crime.

This isn't just me saying this, btw. Here's Robert Reich, lifelong public servant (and yes, dad of @samreich, since I know what's important to y'all):

Finally, the Republican-appointed justices have given a dangerous amount of discretion to presidents — broad enough, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her dissent, to protect presidents from prosecution for bribes and assassinations. A president already has the authority under the Insurrection Act to order troops into American streets. After today’s ruling, those troops would be under the command of a person who would almost certainly enjoy absolute immunity for the orders he gives them.

This is unbelievably terrifying.

[evilkitten3]

i would agree with the latter point

i think op is on the right track but like. the metaphor falls apart once you realize that. the people in power can just ignore you if no one stops them. this has happened before. voting does do stuff, it's disingenuous to say it does nothing, but it does stuff bc we've all agreed that it should, and currently we're all at least on some level behaving as tho we want it to stay that way

but trump lost the popular vote twice, and both times he just. said he didn't. the second time he incited an insurrection about it.

since prev used britain as an example, let's keep on that track - the prime minister of the uk is, as i understand it, chosen by the monarch. however, that monarch always picks the head of the party that got the most seats in the commons, but that's not actually a written rule, it's just convention. technically, the king could pick whoever he wants, so why doesn't he? what's keeping him from doing that?

the most obvious answer is the fear of what would happen after - the fear or violent retaliation.

the same general idea is true here in the usa - while we all love telling ourselves that we get to decide our politicians, the reality is that thanks to the electoral college and insane laws regarding who gets to draw voting districts (usually politicians, who may have a slight conflict of interest there), what actually tends to happen is that politicians pick their voters.

as op says - there is no super-cop coming to arrest trump if he breaks the rules. we know that bc he's been breaking them in public on tv for the better part of a decade, and he's not going to be sentenced until after the election - meaning that if he wins, he can just pardon himself, which he's obviously going to.

you can - and should - vote according to your political beliefs, but to act as tho the vote is a magic spell that wards off evil is just as if not more disingenuous than pretending it does nothing at all.

ask yourself this - what would you have done if the jan 6th insurrection had been successful? would you have taken up arms to overthrow an undemocratically elected leader? or would you have called your representatives to ask them to politely tell him to go away and encouraged everyone to just vote harder next time?

at the end of the day, your vote only means something so long as you're willing to commit to enforcing the idea that it does. if you aren't, you're just adding your name to a meaningless list of people with a preference.

Like, getting political for a moment. A thing a lot of people need to understand is that, ultimately, rules only exist if they are enforceable. The mechanism of enforcement is what determines the realness of a rule.

If you're playing Monopoly and you decide that being in Jail sucks so you move your piece to Go and call it a tunneling loophole, there's nothing built into the game to actually stop you from doing that. Other players yelling at you and banishing you from the table is how the rule is enforced. But if they don't, if they let you do that, then I'm sorry but that's just how the game is played now. If you're allowed to do it then it's not against the rules.

We all instinctively understand that when you're running track, you're not supposed to cross the lines into someone else's lane. But the lines are not a wall. They're not physically preventing you from doing anything. If you decide you want to run into the lane to your right and jump-kick the other racer, you physically can do that.

The line on the ground is a social construct. It's part of the magic circle; A thing that takes on special meaning, even psychological power, so long as we exist within its play space. But it's not real, and it only has power if somebody comes over and drags you off the field for striking that other racer.

At the highest echelons of power, a lot of what "can" and "can't" be done are actually just the boundaries of a magic circle with few real enforcement mechanisms. The President can't do that. But. Like. Who's going to stop him if he does?

The biggest thing we learned during the Trump Presidency was just how many restrictions on government power are illusory. Trump spent his four years in office testing the limits of what he can and can't do. Stepping over the lines of the magic circle to see which ones had enforcement mechanisms and which were merely decorative. And revealing that an alarming number were decorative.

Because the thing about the highest offices, about POTUS and SCOTUS and Congress, is that they're the highest offices. There's nobody above them. The only check on their power is each other and, contrary to what high school social studies might tell you, those checks aren't very strong at all.

Trump wants to redefine the game rules to be dictatorial. The magic circle says he can't do that. But the only factor that truly decides whether he can or can't is whether the other players at the table will let him do it. And if you listen to the way Republican Congressmen talk, it's not reassuring.

There are no executive super-cops who will arrest Trump if he breaks the rules. The Avengers are not going to show up and stop him from continuing to reconfigure the magic circle to his liking. The only thing, the only true restriction on his power, is the vote. It's the fact that we, as a population, get to make a choice as to whether or not he even gets to sit back down at the table to play again at all.

In a democracy, voters are the enforcement mechanism. Let's try and remember that when November comes around.

[sublimeobservationarcade]

 Civil War In America: The Sequel

I just watched Civil War, the 2024 movie, by Alex Garland. I had been holding off on viewing it because I didn’t know if it would be another Hollywood gun fest. Initially, my thoughts were – yeah, dumb Americans and their stupid obsession with whizz bang weapons. I mean, the country contains some 600 million guns, apparently. I called this article, Civil War in America: The sequel because they…

[mental-mona]

*Shudder* Gotta love when people decide that they are the Army of God and therefore correct in wanting to kill everyone who doesn't look like them and/or thinks significantly differently...especially when somehow "made in G-d's image" gets the caveat "but THOSE people are just evil"...

[mourning-again-in-america]

look if you're going to cite a category theorist did you have to pick the one I have twitter beef with

[trueconservativepundit]

2023 Year In Review

By Rob Pue, Publisher – Wisconsin Christian News      Let’s take a look back at the last year, now behind us, and remember all we experienced as we press on into 2024.  The year began with the Biden administration allowing the US Postal Service to ignore state abortion bans and send abortion drugs by mail to all fifty states.  This followed the June ‘22 decision by the US Supreme Court…

[lejacquelope]

This is what happens when you don't obey the law.

If it's good enough for Michael Brown it's good enough for Asshli Babble.

You're welcome, right wing subhuman trash. Suck it!

[luveline]

Hi, I’ve never actually sent a request before so hopefully this is okay, but maybe Hotch’s adult daughter calling him dad for the first time when she’s in trouble or hurt which could also open up an opportunity for Hotch to see her mother for the first time since he found out about her

You’re gonna throw your pants in the trash when you get home. The blouse is a loss —getting blood out of champagne material is a pipe dream. But the pants were unscathed until now. 

“Can you look at me?” 

You lift your pounding head. The EMT cups your cheek, her lips quirked into a deep frown as she raises a small flashlight to your eyes. “Just gonna check your pupils again,” she murmurs, shining the light in your eye. 

Each flash has a heated knife of pain slamming into your brain. You moan in pain and tip your head forward, wanting more than anything to lay down. 

“What can I do to make you more comfortable?” the EMT asks. 

“I want to go to the hospital,” you say. Surely they can fix the carving agony behind your face. 

“I know. As soon as the ruckus upstairs is clear, we’re going to take you there.” 

“I don’t want to sit here.” You grimace at the clammy stone under your legs. The subway is not a good place to touch things. 

“It’ll be over soon. There’s a heavy police presence. You’ll be okay.” 

“Got blood on my shirt,” you mumble. 

“I’m sure someone will wash it for you.” 

“My dad,” you say without thinking. 

If you asked, Aaron would wash the blood from your shirt. He could buy you a whole new wardrobe and he would if you let him, but he would just as happily stand at the sink scrubbing away your stains. 

“Ah, Mr. Hotchner,” the EMT says. “I’ve heard about him, I think we all have. He’s a very important man.” 

“He’s just my dad,” you whisper. 

You’re not really talking to her anymore, the thumping pain behind your eyes a wave you can’t get past. It hurts with every breath. When you hold out your hand, the EMT knows without asking that you’re going to throw up. 

She’s more alarmed after that. “Okay, I’m gonna take you upstairs now, okay? I’m sorry there’s no gurney, but we just have to get to the top of the stairs.” 

Each step sucks. You taste blood and vomit alike on your tongue, the daylight is too bright as you ascend the steps, and the EMT isn’t taking enough of your weight. You moan something incomprehensible even to yourself on the second to last step and cover your eyes, aware of the sirens, the roaring crowds, glass shattering at your feet. 

“Shit,” the EMT says. 

You search for your phone blindly, your hand lost in a pocket full of gum wrappers and tissue. “I don’t have my bag... I want my phone. Need to call my dad.” 

“It’s okay,” she says, giving you an encouraging jostle to look out at the clearing sidewalk. “I can see him.” 

Aaron is speed-walking through the crowd. He’s surrounded by people in Kevlar vests, but he himself wears nothing more than his usual suit and tie. His face changes when he sees you from glaring to a strange flitting panic. 

“Are you all right?” he asks, jogging those last few metres to take you by the elbows. “Sweetheart, are you all right?” 

Your eyes are tired. “Somebody hit me,” you say. 

“I know.” His sympathy is warm, his hand smoothing up your arm as he turns on the spot. “Morgan, can we get better access down this street?” 

One of the Kevlar vests doubles back the way they came. You’re trying to make sense of who you’re seeing, and what’s happening, but the confusion since you got hurt is enthusiastic. You can’t make sense of anything but the splitting pain in your head. 

Aaron’s talking five miles a second and ushering you up those last few steps, a gentleness to his touch that’s absent in his barked commands. 

You’ve never heard him shout like that. You can’t help staring at him. 

“This is an attempted insurrection. The aggression is only going to get worse. JJ, see if you can coordinate with metro PD, make sure there aren’t any other injured civilians in the subway. Dave, I need you to run the operation while I go with her.” 

“Aaron,” you say, watching his frown deepen. 

“Reid, you’re with JJ. Prentiss, I want you to find who laid hands on her–”

“Aaron,” you say again, shocked. 

He gives your arm a placating squeeze. 

“They could still be here.” Everything he says is unarguable. He’s suddenly a monolith, and he’s freaking you out, and you’re no closer to being in the back of the ambulance than you had been ten minutes ago. “Have Garcia pull the security footage–”

“Dad,” you say in a short breath, your hand grasping weakly at his arm. 

He falls silent for a moment. The agent you’re unfamiliar with becomes the man who brings you teddy bears at dinner and sends encouraging missives in the morning. 

“What, sweetheart, what’s wrong?” he asks. Not gentle, but hushed.

“I think I’m gonna be sick again.” 

The EMT passes you a paper bag. 

—

You could hear a pin drop in your hospital room. Your broken nose has its own heartbeat, but that’s a feeling, rather than a sound. Aaron hasn’t spoken in a long time, he just sits there with his hand on your arm, waiting for a cue you don’t give. You’re so embarrassed about calling him dad you’ve decided to never speak to him again. 

His hand occasionally comes to life, giving your arm a soft up and down. 

It’s strange to suddenly have a father, but not bad. His paternal caring is a comfort with all the pain, and it doesn’t feel stilted. With Aaron it never has, he found out you were his and he immediately began to act like it, though you suppose you’ll never know how he would’ve loved you as an adult if he’d known you as a child. This feels genuine. Careful, but genuine. 

“Time to take it off,” he says. 

You meet his eyes. 

“The ice pack,” he explains. 

You drop it onto your leg, and he takes it and sets it on the rollover table instead. 

“You can come and stay with me for a few days,” he suggests quietly.

“I’ll be okay.” 

“Your mom’s working. I can take the time off.”

You give him a dubious look. “And then you’ll get called away and it’ll be just me and Haley in the house. That won’t be awkward at all.” 

He shakes his head. “You’re hurt. You’re gonna feel dizzy for at least another day, and that’s not thinking about how hard it’s gonna be to breathe for a while. I’ll stay home, and you can get familiar with my guest room.” 

“You don’t have to look after me.” 

“But I want to.” He holds your wrist. “I know we aren’t a conventional father and daughter…” His brow furrows, and he looks at your hand just below his rather than your face. “I want the chance to look after you. How many times were you sick as a kid? Hundreds of times. Mostly colds, a runny nose. Maybe you– maybe you broke your arm, I don’t know. But I wish I did. I owe it to you to take care of you now.” 

You give him a small smile as he raises his head. 

“Just think about it,” he says, “we’ll be here all night anyways.” 

“You can go home.” 

“Don’t be difficult,” he says, his sincerity swapped for teasing as he stand. “I have to go find you something to eat.”

He stoops to give you a warm hug across your shoulders. You should want it to be over quickly, you smell like blood and sick and sweat, your clothes are ruined, and you’re not used to him seeing you like this, but let the feeling of his hand on your back persuade you into closing your sore eyes. 

“Okay?” he asks. 

“I’m okay.” 

“Okay. I need to do a lap before your mother gets here anyhow. I might… be more unkind than I plan on being, otherwise.” 

You laugh at his half-joke and hurt your face. He is very sorry. 

[bardly-working]

"An Extremely Violent Adversary Wants Civil Resistance to Turn Violent"

- Myopia of the Syrian Struggle and Key Lessons, by Maciej J. Bartkowski and Julia Taleb

I'm so sick of this "but there's a magical peaceful solution 🌈✨" mindset y'all have when I (or even anyone else) bring up resistance. Please STFU. Another one for the blocklist tag.