Yet the Founders never defined insurrection. In fact, it wasn't defined until 1861
MAYBE they figured it would make it rather difficult to exercise their RIGHT to 'alter or abolish' the federal government if IT had the ability to determine whether or not they could.
-----
uses the term “Executive” the same as Article 2 section 1.
I've given multiple sources that say otherwise.
YOUR deception is that you continue to make an assertion based on nothing more than the results of your own intellectual masturbations.
How is it any more definitive there than it was in the Insurrection Act of 1807?
The states retained the right of revolution. The federal government (and the state governments) retain the rights to put down insurrection.
Both are extra-legal events, though if and insurrection made war against the United States, that would be treason, and could have legal penalties.
Just as terorism is not constrained by legality, and terrorist acts can lead to significant penalties not inflicted by the judiciary.
Except your multiple sources don’t turn Article 4 Section 4 into something that has to do with insurrection. It remains a consideration of what to do regarding domestic violence.
There are different kinds of law. for you I will give them a name and an example.
Physical law: The speed of light is 186,284 miles per second.
Constitutional law: Controversies between the states are to be resolved with the Supreme Court as original jurisdiction.
Legislative law: The militia consists of the national guard and the unorganized militia. (Title 10, Section 311)
Common law: Justice Taney held in “Dred Scott” that persons of African heritage could have no standing in the court.
In all cases the executive acting within his legitimate powers has authority to act under his best understanding of the law. His understanding is subject to review, by a judge in a particular case, or by appeal.
Any definition of any legal term is given in legislative law and constituional law by other legal terms. In common law, the definition is given in more concrete terms.
Example: A person is accused of grand theft, in that he stole a very nice and expensive chair. In Case 1, on appeal, the appeals court held that the value of the chair did not meet the legal definition of grand theft. In Case 2, a somewhat nicer and more expensive chair was held to meet the definition of grand theft.
The judge must, with that information, attempt to decide, for the case at hand whether the chair that is alleged to have been stolen, more closely resembles case 1 or case 2.
While a judge can be wrong, the defendent has an option to appeal.
Where appellate judges are wrong, the legislature can rewrite the law to give added guidance. The Executive has a power to pardon, which may also correct judicial error.
Where laws forbid proscribe punishment of behavior that should not be forbidden, or should not be punished, Attorneys General have a near absolute authority to exercise discretion. Usually there is plenty of work, so prosecutors may decide not to prosecute less important crimes or misdemeanors. On the otherhand, to obtain political advantage, a prosecutor may decide to prosecute even when there is no crime. The latter prosecutor should expect to be punished either by the court, or by a voting public.
In the case of bad law, a jury, or any member of the jury may decide to vote against a guilty verdict. This is called Jury nullification.
Jury Foreman: We find the accused not guilty of cattle rustling if he gives back the cows.
Judge: You can’t find that. If he took the cows, you must find him guilty.
Jury Foreman: Not Guilty of cattle rustling, and he can keep the cows.