I know this issue has been discussed ad nauseum, BUT … I’m posting the actual language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution because I personally think there has been undue attention to a particular word in the discourse of the Amendment as pertaining to Donald J. Trump.
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.
The word most commonly/frequently used when referencing Donald J. Trump’s actions on January 6th has been “insurrection” — and while its meaning is similar to “rebellion,” there is a slight difference.
One definition of the word “insurrection” is a “rebellion, revolt, uprising, etc.” Although the word “rebellion” is included in this definition, the word as a standalone has a slightly different meaning which I think is more accurate — AND more in line with the actions of Donald J. Trump.
A REBELLION is defined as a “refusal to accept some authority, code or convention.” Does this not more accurately describe the actions of Donald J. Trump?
Consider the following:
Donald J. Trump has denied his part in the January 6th uprising, claiming that he didn’t actually take part in the uprising. But he DID tell his supporters (in a VERY long-winded speech) that he essentially refused to accept the authority of the constitutionally assigned election.
And then he said …
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
Then after (another) slam against the Democrats, he says:
But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help. We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
Keywords: Take Back Our Country.
And from here, I’ll let my readers form their own conclusions on how the issue will be resolved.
Nan's Notebook 
Thank you for posting this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well it appears from all the questioning that it’ll be 8-1 or 9-0 in favor of “Constitution, Schmonstitution, this doesn’t apply here” .
LikeLiked by 4 people
If this does indeed turn out to be the case … is ANYONE surprised?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Certainly not surprised, as it looks like the justices are worried about what kind of Pandora’s Box will be opened by affirming the Colorado decision.
Really, the main question on my mind now, that I hope that SCOTUS addresses when they bring forward their decision, is what criteria must be met in order to be ruled ineligible under the 14th amendment? I’m not sure we’ll see that.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It frustrates me that the many and various articles about this fiasco keep using the word “insurrection” — yet as I’ve pointed out, the word “rebellion” is much more descriptive of what took place. I’m puzzled (and baffled) as to why the press –and the Court members– refuse/avoid using it.
I agree with your last point as to exactly what criteria would be necessary in order to meet the demands of the amendment.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I just read the latest Hartmann report.
I hope I read it wrong, I really do.
LikeLike
Considering that another amendment to the very same constitution is interpreted to mean that any aggrieved good ole boy capable of spelling his own name correctly 2 out of 3 times is at liberty to wander the streets with a loaded military assault weapon, I don’t hold out much hope for common sense being applied to this one.
But would that really resolve the issue, anyway? The fear is that Trump will win a democratic election based upon his support so preventing him standing in that election with legal action will only serve to bolster that support. Does anybody want to live in a country where a further disenfranchised mob are increasingly convinced that they are the victims of a legal witch hunt?
The only way to stop this in a so called democracy is to convince people to cast their votes with the future of their children in mind.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good luck with that! I think we are past the point of no return
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not confident either, but I’d still maintain that Mr Trump is a symptom and not a cause. Every second hand car yard in America would have a salesman who could slip into his shoes.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Agree..the rot is much bigger or he wouldn’t have gotten such a hold
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course this would be the sane and sensible pathway. But unfortunately, this country seems to have left sanity in the bushes somewhere and can’t find which bush to look under.
The thing is — if our Constitution can’t stand on its own, then why bother with any of it? We’ve already had battles over the “freedom of worship” clause. And the “freedom of speech” has been tested as well.
Of course the CORE problem is …. politics in any and all of its macabre tenets.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m with you there Nan. I find it, in principle, a bit unrealistic for any document to remain relevant several hundred years after being written. It doesn’t mean that the ideals need to change but it’s hard to imagine what sort of sense anyone will make out of these documents in another two thousand years.
Yes …. politics …. the art of convincing people that you care about them and that the other guy doesn’t. When both guys are geriatrics (one slow and forgetful, the other having regressed into petulant childhood) it has the makings of B grade daytime TV. Am I watching the future of the Western World or just another episode of Judge Judy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
it’s politics, but it’s something else that makes him so appealing (trying to not whimper over that); it isn’t the ill-educated, the ignorant, the hangers-on that are caught up in this net of his; it’s the unsophisticated, people with small town minds and narrow thought processes that he appeals to. He talks their language. He’s a “deese dose dem” kinda guy, and it appeals to them.
You remember Adlai Stevenson? He was intelligent, sophisticated, he could think rings around Eisehower and Nixon and anyone else out there, and he lost. He made people uncomfortable.
LikeLike
I never thought of Jan 6 as either an insurrection OR a rebellion, but rather an invasion intended to disrupt, discredit, and possibly hang the first person they could catch. Those jackasses weren’t rebelling, they were behaving like spoiled children let loose in the house alone when Mum and Dad were on vacation.
LikeLike
Forgive me, Nan, if I drift momentarily off track …. I read yesterday that in a survey conducted in 2010, 40% of Americans believed that the second coming of God was likely to occur before 1950. This conjures up all sorts of interesting ideas to me …. I can just imagine God, who exists apparently outside of time and space, jotting down on his calendar pinned to the fridge ….. ‘visit Earth. Drinks at 6 followed by dinner at 7. Dress code, smart casual.’ And then thinking to himself, “I wonder what I told them last time? Should I update that a bit? Add a few extra rules?”
But the main point in this context, and taking note of Judy’s assessment of ‘those jackasses’ Is that, based on the 2010 survey, Trump would be absolutely justified in thinking that these idiots would believe anything.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi. Oh dear Nan, are you becoming radicalized? 😀😃😉😎 Hugs. Scottie
LikeLike
I hardly think it’s radical to point out the actual language of the Amendment when Trump is doing his best to circumvent it.
LikeLike
HI Nan. From the republican maga loving people it is. Very much so. That was the joke. Apparently it missed. Sorry. Hugs. Scottie
LikeLike
it feels like a lost cause, sadly; the Supreme Court is now riddled with extremely partisan judges, two of whom have been accused of sexual shenanigans, and I don’t hold out much hope in any direction.
And oh I do so want to be wrong on this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So do we all. But as you say … hope is in short supply.
I still contend that if more focus was put on the word “rebellion,” the argument against him would have greater weight. But what do I know?
LikeLike
I simply do not understand why anyone with half a brain and two opposable thumbs could see Trump as the savior to anything but cleanup duty at the dog park. He is addled, revolting in his personal habits, he can’t form full sentences, and people all but bow down in homage when he speaks.
What are we missing?
I’m going back to YouTube, listen to something sensible, like the BeeGees or Bo Diddley…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Trump is also guilty for “or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”
He stopped funding to Ukraine when President therefore assisting no1 US enemy Putin. Trump was intending to split the US from NATO if he had been voted back in and that would have assisted all the enemies of the US. Of course US Presidents in the past have funded terrorist countries or groups one way or another, so I guess that will not work.
In reality Trump should have had his arse in jail by now, with all the women he has molested and tax cheating alone anyone else would have been locked up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mob bosses rule. Need I say more?
LikeLike
Guilty. No matter how you parse the meaning of the words. We all know what he did. We all know want he wants to do this time around.
By “we,” I mean everyone smart enough to pour piss out of their shoe. Most Republicans aren’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So, do his supporters think they have “no country anymore”, or do they think some of them fought “like hell” and saved it for them? How? Or have they forgotten what he said?
Now he has said he would encourage Putin to attack a fellow NATO country, he did not specify, if they did not cough up the 2% investment into military spending. This was not taken well by Stoltenberg, the NATO chairman. It appears he spouts out the most outrageous crap, but the crowd cheers. Wich really what he wants. I bet he is not interresdted in Abortion, the Mexcan brder, or in NATO spending at all. I think those are just tools for him to sell people his main product. Himself.
LikeLike
And I think you are totally and completely CORRECT in your closing statements!!!
The sad fact is that his supporters are unable to see that he is nothing more than an Egotistical Blowhard who will do and/or say whatever is necessary to get the applause and media attention. I won’t deny that he probably has some views about how the government should be run, but he’s MUCH more interested in the adulation than he is running the country.
LikeLike
To me, looking at this from the other side of the pond, it looks like he has two fairly different sort of supporters. Those who are eating from his hand and have taken all his ridiculous lies at face value – not the majority by any means, but a critical mass to extort the party, and the other group, who see him as an asset to reach some political goal on their own agenda, who may indeed see him as the self interrested madman he is, but are still willing to grant him the power. I do not know wich of these groups are worse, since I find myself pitying those who are stupid enough to adolate him, and those who plan to use him as morally corrupt, but also a pitifull lot, for he is abusing them and their ambition for some cause and the fact, that their common nominator to the first group – Conservatism – is a fear of change, for he is using it in his own good, in order to alter the society around him radically and for the worst for all.
The january 6. events could be called an insurrection, or a rebellion to describe what happened in legal terms, and in common speech, but regardless what people call it, they – especially those, who for what ever reason, have and/or are considering to support him – should see what undeniably happened: he aroused his supporters into a state of anger by lying to them, that the USA is no longer a functioning democracy, slipped from the scene instead of leading them to a peacefull demonstration, and waited hiding behind the curtain for hours, if the crowd would deliver him power past electorial system instead of showing necessary leadership for someone in his position, like the opportunist he has ever been. He can not appeal to not knowing he had lost the election, as he at the time held the most informed office, so either he outrageously lied about it, or is not sane. His actions followed by his inaction on that day were at best a dereliction of duty, but more likely a treason.
LikeLiked by 3 people