This is the third post in our series on the current debate about Section three of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. You can read the first two parts here and here.
The Supreme Court is involved
This past week the US Supreme Court agreed to review the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court removing former President Donald Trump from the Republican Primary ballot1 because he engaged in insurrection. Oral arguments on the case are scheduled for Thursday, February 8. This is just one of the current actions taken by States and courts based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment which states
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.
I always include the actual text of the Constitution (and relevant Amendments) in my posts so that my readers can base their opinions on the actual text and not on the summary or analysis of the text by me or anyone else. I will give you my analysis but clearly separate this analysis from the actual facts or text.
You will note that “President” is not included in the list of prior offices held, although “an elector of President and Vice-President” is listed. In other words, in the specific list of elected offices listed in this Amendment, the office of President is not included. Congress was being very specific here in making a list of affected offices and chose not to include the President.
You will also note that at the end of the list of Federal positions that they did include the general category of “or as an officer of the United States.” If you do an internet search you will find a myriad of opinions on why the President is or is not “an officer of the United States.” That is clearly one of the issues that the SCOTUS2 will have to resolve.
Slanted Media Writers3
Expanding on my point of including the actual text and not merely my analysis, you will find many articles printed in the Leftstream media that provide headlines and summaries with opinions and not facts. Here is one example from the WP:
“The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that anyone who has:
1. taken an oath to support the Constitution, and
2. “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”
can’t hold any office in the United States.” 4
You my readers know that Section 3 does not say “anyone” but gives a specific list and there is a great debate whether or not “President” is included. It is very deceptive to say “anyone.” The writer of the article goes on to truthfully add that president isn’t explicitly mentioned but the point has been made in the summary that “anyone” is ineligible. Misleading or even deceptive headlines and summaries have been a hallmark of reporting on this issue.
For more on media bias (both Left and Right), read our posts Don't Believe the Headlines and Here's the News.
Is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment still in force?
In our first post on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment we discussed the issue of whether or not the 14th Amendment has any application beyond the Civil War, presenting arguments for and against its applicability. We concluded that this is another issue on which SCOTUS will need to rule. Might they rule that it is no longer in force, making the whole issue moot?
Was there even an Insurrection?
In both of our prior posts we discussed the issue of whether or not there even was an insurrection on January 6. This is another issue on which SCOTUS could rule. We noted in our first post that
“Section 3 has no application unless there are insurrectionists and an insurrection. The weakest part of the argument for barring Trump from the ballot is the simple assertion, with little or no attempt to justify it, that an insurrection actually occurred on January 6 and that Trump participated in this insurrection and/or supported it. While it was clear in 1868 that an insurrection, the four-year Civil War, had occurred, it is far from clear that the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection.”
Is Trump an Insurrectionist?
The Democrat House under Nancy Pelosi impeached President Trump under one article of impeachment entitled “Incitement of Insurrection” on January 13, 2021, one week before he left office.5 The impeachment was delivered to the Senate on January 25, triggering the first impeachment trial of a President who had already left office. Trump was then acquitted by the Senate for the second time on February 13, 2021.
The point of impeaching Trump after he left office was obviously not to remove him from office but rather to make him ineligible to ever serve again. The last sentence of the Articles of Impeachment stated: “Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”
An impeachment by the House is analogous to a legal indictment and the trial in the Senate analogous to a legal trial. So Trump was acquitted of the charge of insurrection in the political process of Impeachment. He has yet to be charged, much less tried, for insurrection under the legal system.
The Evidence
The so-called “January 6 Committee” of the Democrat 117th Congress did determine that there was an insurrection led by Trump, but as we discussed in our first post, this Committee was not convened following house rules and many of the key actors on January 6 were not even called to testify.6 The report of the Committee gave the Leftstream media talking points but its conclusions are far from definitive. Unfortunately, the “Democrat J6 Committee” report has been used by the Left and some Courts to further the Insurrection narrative.
With all the video from J6 being released by the 118th Congress under Speaker Johnson and the testimony of key players like the Capitol Police Chief on January 6, Steven Sund (who wrote a book), and others, the J6 narrative spun by the Democrats, the J6 Committee and the Leftstream media is rapidly unraveling, as indicated in a recent Washington Post poll.7 While there was some violence and rioting, as you may have seen in the short video of violence shown in every Leftstream broadcast, the rioting was just a small part of what happened that day, as the video shown by Tucker Carlson in the spring of 20238 and repeatedly shown in the subsequent video as it is released.
The issue of this being a false flag operation, a “Fedsurrection,” is another of the reasons that the narrative is unraveling. Christopher Wray, FBI Director, has refused to answer questions about how many law enforcement officers were undercover in the crowd, although Congressman Clay Higgins (LA-3) says that based on ongoing Congressional investigations, 200 would be a conservative estimate.9 This event took place not long after the Whitmer kidnapping case in which as many as 12 of the 18 participants were Federal agents or informers.10 And according to revolver.news, the head of the FBI Field Office in Detroit during the Whitmer kidnapping plot was promoted to the Washington Field office to handle J6 investigations.11
And finally, isn’t it interesting that this group bent on overthrowing the government came in large numbers to the Capitol unarmed! This conservative, pro-Trump, pro-election integrity crowd was part of the segment of our nation that is also strongly pro-first and pro-second amendment. If this group were planning to have an insurrection, wouldn’t they have brought weapons? But no weapons were found. (You can be sure of that! If weapons had been found, it would have been front page news.) They supposedly attempted a government takeover armed with flagpoles and bear spray!
Finally
We don’t know how the Supreme Court will rule or which of these issues they will address. We do know that oral arguments are a month away and the Iowa Caucuses a week away. We know that there are two Republican Primaries and a second Caucus by the time of the oral arguments. We don’t know how long it will take for the Supreme Court to rule but there are 22 Primaries, including Super Tuesday, in the first 30 days following oral arguments. But we do know that this Primary will be a wild ride with so many of the contests before SCOTUS rules, so buckle up.
The Secretary of State of Maine has also removed Trump from the ballot and the Colorado case will have application in Maine and other States considering removing Trump from the ballot.
SCOTUS is an acronym for Supreme Court of the United States
I always use terms like Writers or Authors and not the term “Journalist” because these writers have (by their own admission) dropped any pretense of impartial journalism and only write to support the official narrative.
This quote is from the daily “The 5-minute Fix,” which I read so you don’t have to https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?trackId=5c37abc6ade4e207264ec8f2&s=6595e425b7e5c90e00749f98&linknum=2&linktot=33&linknum=2&linktot=33
The J6 Committee of Democrats and Pelosi selected anti-Trump Republicans was a Hollywood produced show designed to produce a desired end. There was no Minority Counsel as is normal and many key witnesses, like the Chief of the Capitol Police, Steven Sund, were not called to testify.
“Three years after the Jan. 6 attack, Republicans are more sympathetic to those who stormed the U.S. Capitol and more likely to absolve Donald Trump of responsibility for the attack than they were in 2021, according to a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/01/02/jan-6-poll-post-trump/
Dr. Naomi Wolf, a liberal feminist and former Democratic political consultant, had her eyes opened to the deception of the Leftstream when she saw the J6 video Tucker Carlson played in the spring of 2023 and she posted Dear Conservatives, I Apologize on her Substack.
Statement made to Tucker Carlson on Episode 61 from January 6, 2024.