You raise an important disagreement with Baude-Paulsen that an insurrection must involve force, even if people can aid that insurrection without direct use of force themselves. The scope of what could be punished as insurrection without this requirement should be frightening to anyone. Some of Trump's other efforts to subvert the election might be illegal, but without January 6, they don't constitute insurrection.
Trump contends that an enemy of the United States must actually be a government, which is silly. But the argument gestures vaguely toward an important distinction: an insurrection attempts to replace a government. "Impede" doesn't just mean to obstruct law enforcement--this is obstruction of justice or resisting arrest. An insurrection either claims rule over territory or attempts to supplant the existing government (which claims all the territory).
The CHAZ set forth a secessionist goal, but they didn't defend this goal with force. If they had, insurrection. Meanwhile, you describe Portland as a siege. That implies that the goal of the protesters was to take possession of the courthouse and either compel judges to make certain rulings or declare themselves judges and announce their rulings with force of law. Evidence that this was their goal and that they attempted it with force is what this article is missing to make the case that the protest amounted to insurrection. According to Romney, Republicans in Congress feared for their lives and families if they opposed Trump. Did federal judges reasonably fear for their lives if they didn't make some set of rulings in the protesters' favor? If yes, insurrection. Otherwise, the characterization of a "siege" just cites the Orwellian take of an administration piloting use of force against citizens in preparation for its own plans, already in making at that time, to seize the federal government regardless of electoral outcome.
I hadn't realized you'd voted for Trump both times! Given prior articles, I'd had the impression you voted for him grudgingly the first time, then refrained from doing so the second. Your 2020 fiction on a second civil war ignored something important: Trump had signaled clearly that he would deny the results not only of an ambiguous election, but of any election he did not win. Anyone paying the least attention knew that, if Trump did not win the election, an insurrection would come. The only questions were how severe it would be and whether it would succeed, and one of the factors controlling success would be the closeness of the election.
Was this not plain to you? If it had been, would you still have voted for him a second time?
Talk about a journey… footnote 12 could have been an entire break-out post (like the ‘Biden really win’ companion piece)!
I really appreciate the dedication you take to both providing thorough, researched facts throughout this series as well as taking such a dogmatic steel-man approach to each side’s claims.
I'm late to commenting on this post, but I've been busy, and the questions are still significant.
I'll agree with you, Trump, and Greathouse that "levying war" against the United States falls within the umbrella of insurrection. But, where do you get that trying "to suspend the execution of the laws" constitutes war or insurrection? I don't see any clear argument for that in your post or Greathouse.
Without that, I'm still not convinced the riot at the Capitol constituted an insurrection.
And even with it, I'd need to examine the argument carefully as to the scope - they were definitely trying to at least "suspend" fewer laws, and "suspend" them less clearly than, say, the Portland rioters you mention!
Very strongly written!
You raise an important disagreement with Baude-Paulsen that an insurrection must involve force, even if people can aid that insurrection without direct use of force themselves. The scope of what could be punished as insurrection without this requirement should be frightening to anyone. Some of Trump's other efforts to subvert the election might be illegal, but without January 6, they don't constitute insurrection.
Trump contends that an enemy of the United States must actually be a government, which is silly. But the argument gestures vaguely toward an important distinction: an insurrection attempts to replace a government. "Impede" doesn't just mean to obstruct law enforcement--this is obstruction of justice or resisting arrest. An insurrection either claims rule over territory or attempts to supplant the existing government (which claims all the territory).
The CHAZ set forth a secessionist goal, but they didn't defend this goal with force. If they had, insurrection. Meanwhile, you describe Portland as a siege. That implies that the goal of the protesters was to take possession of the courthouse and either compel judges to make certain rulings or declare themselves judges and announce their rulings with force of law. Evidence that this was their goal and that they attempted it with force is what this article is missing to make the case that the protest amounted to insurrection. According to Romney, Republicans in Congress feared for their lives and families if they opposed Trump. Did federal judges reasonably fear for their lives if they didn't make some set of rulings in the protesters' favor? If yes, insurrection. Otherwise, the characterization of a "siege" just cites the Orwellian take of an administration piloting use of force against citizens in preparation for its own plans, already in making at that time, to seize the federal government regardless of electoral outcome.
I hadn't realized you'd voted for Trump both times! Given prior articles, I'd had the impression you voted for him grudgingly the first time, then refrained from doing so the second. Your 2020 fiction on a second civil war ignored something important: Trump had signaled clearly that he would deny the results not only of an ambiguous election, but of any election he did not win. Anyone paying the least attention knew that, if Trump did not win the election, an insurrection would come. The only questions were how severe it would be and whether it would succeed, and one of the factors controlling success would be the closeness of the election.
Was this not plain to you? If it had been, would you still have voted for him a second time?
Talk about a journey… footnote 12 could have been an entire break-out post (like the ‘Biden really win’ companion piece)!
I really appreciate the dedication you take to both providing thorough, researched facts throughout this series as well as taking such a dogmatic steel-man approach to each side’s claims.
I'm late to commenting on this post, but I've been busy, and the questions are still significant.
I'll agree with you, Trump, and Greathouse that "levying war" against the United States falls within the umbrella of insurrection. But, where do you get that trying "to suspend the execution of the laws" constitutes war or insurrection? I don't see any clear argument for that in your post or Greathouse.
Without that, I'm still not convinced the riot at the Capitol constituted an insurrection.
And even with it, I'd need to examine the argument carefully as to the scope - they were definitely trying to at least "suspend" fewer laws, and "suspend" them less clearly than, say, the Portland rioters you mention!