Insurrection is already a federal crime. The argument Colorado is making is that the U.S.C's definition of insurrection and the 14th amendment's definition of insurrection aren't the same thing. Given that federal criminal law derives its authority explicitly from Congress, that seems incredibly specious, all the more so because he could clearly be charged with insurrection and he hasn't.

Where do they define insurrection in the U.S.C.? 2383 doesn't define it, just gives that if you do it you would be fined or imprisoned not more than 10 years and be incapable of holding office.

So are you referring to any specific statute that actually does define it?


I think it's more likely than not that the supreme court says that in absence of an actual definition by congress 2383 is most relavent and he would need a conviction under that statute, but it's not out of the question that they say because it isn't explicitly defined that any case that proves a sufficient number of elements as determined by the courts would be enough to bar from office.

We can't really say until it happens.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 29 2023 11:33pm

It doesn't require an explanation in USC 2383 beyond the fact that USC 2383 is clearly a different statute with a different plain meaning and effect than USC 1512
There is explicitly a law to charge someone with insurrection or rebellion, and nobody was charged with it, least of all Trump. People were charged with delaying an official proceeding.
What kind of insane legal stretch is required to argue someone is subject to the penalties of being guilty of an action he's never been charged for, wasn't involved in, was never tried or convicted, and which was never committed in the first place by anyone.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Dec 30 2023 02:30am

after that pic he went up another point

They don't, nor do they spell out what it means specifically to "give aid or comfort" to our enemies.

https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=35&page=1088

If the statute is overly broad (I don't necessarily think so, because insurrection has a common definition), then the courts should strike it down and return it to Congress, but Colorado and Maine cannot simply determine that person A is guilty of an offense they've never been tried for and stripped of their rights.

I was asking because Bogie said there was a federal definition. Turns out there isn't. In absence of that, it's very possible the courts give some elements that must be met to be guilty of insurrection under the constitution.



Well there you go then. Until we get a court to decide we won't know for sure. You have your opinion but it doesn't carry any weight. You say they cannot, and yet they did. We'll have to wait for a full ruling to say they cannot.

Have there been instances of this section of the 14th amendment being enforced without a conviction of "insurrection/rebellion"?

One argument is that the amendment was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, and the nation was not willing to prosecute every insurrectionist who fought against the Union, so it wouldn't be expected that it would require someone to be convicted of another statute. The point was to prevent these people from holding office, without requiring the prosecution of hundreds of thousands.

Therefore, Trump doesn't need to be charged or convicted of anything, there just needs to be a determination made as to whether or not he engaged in insurrection/rebellion or aiding those who did. Which he obviously is guilty of.

This post was edited by IceMage on Dec 30 2023 12:12pm

There's this weird reliance on convictions of certain statutes as a requirement for Trump supporters to recognize reality. We don't need all the elements of an insurrection statute to be met to realize that what happened on January 6th was an insurrection. We can just look at the definition of the word and determine it. This isn't hard stuff.

Likewise, judges have to make decisions about words and definitions absent indictments or convictions of certain statutes all the time.

This post was edited by IceMage on Dec 30 2023 12:26pm

Fallacious reasoning. ^^