The Problem with ‘Insurrection’ in the Impeachment Article

National Review ^ | 1/13/2021 | Andrew McCarthy

[Onthebrink]

I have tried to distinguish two issues: whether President Trump committed impeachable conduct (he did), and whether that conduct is accurately described in the article of impeachment Democrats will propose today (the description is problematic). Relevant to that latter point, as I’ve previously detailed, is the title of the article: “Incitement to Insurrection.”

My point here is not to rehash the problems I’ve already outlined. It is, rather, to look at the issue through the prism of my colleague Dan McLaughlin’s characteristically incisive and comprehensive essay on the insurrection-based disqualification from public office in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

As Dan details, top Democrats and influential progressive legal scholars contend that President Trump, and perhaps other Republicans and Trump supporters who can be tied to the events that led to the siege on the Capitol last Wednesday, could be disqualified from holding public office under Section 3. The ban is triggered if a person is found to “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against [the United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

[Verginius Rufus]

Remember how National Review back in 2016 had a whole issue devoted to anti-Trump articles? Andrew McCarthy was one of the names on the cover of the issue.

[cdcdawg]

I do remember that. I also remember their story on how supporting “gay marriage” was a conservative value. National Review made some questionable alliances in fighting the intellectual part of the Cold War. That worked, but they lost the peace.