Posted on 12/21/2023 4:50:12 AM PST by Pete Dovgan
This is a honest Freeper question for the people on these boards.
What is the difference between a Violent Riot against the Government and a Insurrection?
Example #1. Antifa and BLM 'rioters' attacked and destroyed Federal (government buildings), police, and attempted to burn people alive inside of the buildings. The Democrats labelled this a 'Riot'.
Example #2: In the 1960's Black Panthers, armed with loaded 'assault' rifles stormed into the Capital Building. Considered by Democrats as a political event.
Example #3: On January 6th, FBI encouraged, and Capital police helping, bused in Antifa and undercover FBI who went to scale the walls of the Capital building, break windows. Further, the Capital police fired explosive devices into the protest area beginning the violence. None of the protesters were armed. This is held as an 'insurrection'.
The definition of 'insurrection' appears to be fluid. Certainly the definition of violent riot against the Government and insurrection, by the standards of Democrats, is very blurred. My understanding of Insurrection is that it is an ARMED uprising against the government. What is the correct use of the term?
Although I wouldn’t say this is the reality fo the situation, I think that conceptually, the Left sees it this way:
ANTIFA mobs burning cities are just trying to cause trouble. Trying to raise consciousness. Trying to highlight problems that should be solved by society. Riots are an appropriate tool to achieve these goals.
Trump supporters walking through the Capitol? That is a revolution. They are actually trying to overthrow the government. They want to replace the US government with a fascist rightwing theocracy. This is an Insurrection and is subject to legal prosecution.
It isn’t violence or insurrection when leftists do it.
Next thing you know, you’ll be asking what’s the difference between whites-only water fountains and people-of-color-only Christmas (oops! I mean, “holiday”) parties.
“ANTIFA mobs burning cities are just trying to cause trouble. Trying to raise consciousness. Trying to highlight problems that should be solved by society. “
I think you’re close. I think, though, that the Left has some idealized, nebulous thoughts about The Revolution, and they see ANTIFA as that Revolution. In their minds, sticking it to The Man, or The System, which they are now running btw, is good. It’s a complete “1984” double think. (Some might call it good, old fashioned mental illness.)
Well, who is the “protected class” here? Most definitely NOT the assembled masses at ANY Trump rally, and if it is possible to lure them out of the packed crowd they are most commonly found in, those MAGA supporters will be targeted, and rounded up, charged with “sedition” or “unlawful entry”, denied access to bail, and imprisoned with disproportionate sentences after a biased court system has affirmed their “guilt”, with no exculpatory evidence ever being permitted.
Or simply murdered, like Ashli Babbitt.
'Insurrection' is a term from 15th century times that was resurrected (both words share the same root meaning upheaval) by Nancy Pelosi to cast aspertion on a peaceful protest. It was impropoerly used for strictly political purposes.
My two cents: An insurrection as mentioned in the 14A has to be declared by a relevant authority. The Constitution is silent as to who that relevant authority is.
The Insurrection act of 1807 gives the president the power to declare an insurrection. Given that they (supposedly) represent the people, an insurrection declared by Congress would also carry weight.
But in Trump’s case, who is declaring an insurrection? It’s various state and local officials, more than two years after the incident. How in the world can this stand?
And if it does stand, why couldn’t a city or state look at some politician’s statement from 10 years ago, and say “He was trying to start an insurrection there. Off the ballot he goes!”
Whatever a MAGA citizen does is wrong!!! You can squeeze money out of them at court hearings because they are upstanding citizens. Try getting anything from a BLM paid person.
Shame on corporations and banks for giving them hundreds of millions to live high on the hog.
Oh, I agree. But this is about word games. If the Left openly says that ANTIFA is a revolutionary movement, then it becomes awkward if no one in law enforcement cares about the Revolution. Sure, sure -- have the riot, burn the buildings, kill people, fundamentally transform the country. Just don't call the movement a Revolution because, you know, that would be illegal.
Meanwhile, Republicans hold signs and that gets labeled an "Insurrection" which allows law enforcement to pounce and prosecute everyone.
So, ANTIFA really is the Revolution, but they choose words carefully so that only our side appears to be doing something illegal.
-PJ
We don’t have Definitions anymore, all we have are Twistinitions.
You are never going to get an objective answer to this question here.
The finding in Colorado stated that the term insurrection for their purposes was “self executing” meaning that it did not require any action from Congress.
They found that evidence presented in the five day trial in November was sufficient in proving that January 6th was an insurrection.
They defined it (I am paraphrasing) that it was a violent movement with the intent to overturn the election. They stated that an insurrection was more serious than a riot, but not rising to a violent rebellion.
I read the ruling this morning. I read the 113 page complaint last night. I thought the complaint was the same stuff we’ve been reading for months. The ruling goes through answering all of your questions. There was one dissent that said that ruling couldn’t be made because of failure of due process. There are arguments made that since Trump was not denied “Life, Liberty, or Property” that the due process clause was not applicable.
Now, before everyone goes rat-shit on me, I am merely stating what the complaint and ruling decrees. I have no idea of the “legality” of it.
Personally, I think this is a very slippery slope, where states are going to start thinking they do whatever they want. And while that has always been the case, I believe this is a tipping point we do not want to visit.
I don’t support Trump for a lot of reasons. But this crap is not good for the country.
What about a Quiet Riot?
Black is a political term invented to create unity where there is in fact great diversity. Black gives a comforting feeling of unity, of belonging, that has been exploited into votes
A pride of lions
A gaggle of geese
A murder of crows
A riot of Blacks
"They defined it (I am paraphrasing) that it was a violent movement with the intent to overturn the election."
"It" was a protest about failures to preserve the integrity of voting, given several indications of vote fraud plus actual incidents of vote fraud.
AND, either petitioning or protesting, or both, before the Congress is NOT "insurrection."
BUT, justices' caprice from the bench, is.
Not going to get an argument from me.
I was merely trying to answer the original post.
Read and ponder later.
Here are some reference items. Posted without comment.
Article about the ruling that explains it.
https://www.cato.org/blog/agree-it-or-not-colorado-supreme-courts-opinion-disqualifying-trump-triumph-judicial
The Complaint
The SC of Colorado Ruling
Its a big club, and we aint in it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.