US Constitution and Insurrection

US Constitution ^ | June 21, 1788 | James Madison, Alexander Hamilton

[AndyJackson]

Ping. I think this provides an interesting legal / constitutional framework for what Q-anon has been posting.

[Souled_Out]

Prosecute Sessions.

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw]

Using SEALs to capture and detain criminals like Soros et al, requires a slam dunk body of evidence. Less evidence is required to fire and prosecute federal employees. Their loyalty to elected representatives and therefore the country should be steadfast.Allowing for insurrectionists cabals within government is the gateway to destruction for a republic.

[rurgan]

At least fire Sessions now.

[AndyJackson]

Well if you believe the rumors of a bomb left in a cabinet in the White House emergency operations center, that is a strong body of evidence that an insurrection is in progress.

[Manly Warrior]

Regardless of the government’s self-preserving explanations, the Founders based their revolt and insurrection against the otherwise lawful King by clearly defining the Natural Laws of liberty and freedom and the right to self-governance in a manner that THEY the governed saw fit. The clearly predicated that revolt/insurrection as a means to throw off abusive and tyrannical government was not to be taken lightly and to be suffered as long as possible while seeking redress and appeal to the laws and the rights of citizens. That said, they clearly outlined the exact and specific causes for their revolt and declaration of the right to be free and independent. They broke every law and decree the government laid against them and most of the signators of the DOI suffered cruelly for their decision and actions.

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The logic and right they outlined then is the same and exact standard by which we must look at the issues that face us.

Look carefully- we do indeed have a representative government- our legislatures are not suspended and we have courts filled with judges and due processes that we can address via the ballot or political pressure of other lawful sorts. We do not have the same conditions the founders had, and not matter what ones’ personal opinion is, the right and duty to throw off this government and secure for our liberties another form that we the body politic see fit, is not ours based on the equation and principles outlined in the founding document of this peoples’ nation....

Many of us took oaths of allegiance to the US Constitution as military, naval and Law enforcement officers, all citizens implicitly have the same duty and we certainly must stand guard against abuses and usurpations of our liberty, and we do exactly that- one only has to look at the recent elections in 2016, lots of hopeful change, but it is like all civil change, a process, not a single act.

[jjotto]

The language applies to the States, such as California in regard to immigration law. There is no current impediment to the normal course of justice in dealing with individuals. What’s lacking is political will.

[thinden]

Wary inkterestink

Thanx very much for sharing this impt info

[Wildbill22]

Where did you get that?

[ExTexasRedhead]

There’s also this:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/

[SandRat]

If these were faithfully FOLLOWED & OBEYED there would be a lot of miscreants in Prison.

18 US Code §§2381-2390 address TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES. For instance 18 U.S. Code § 2383 states "Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Most interesting perhaps is 8 U.S. Code § § 2382 "Misprision of treason." Since no one knows what "misprison" means anymore no one would look at this one, but it has sharp teeth that bite hard "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."

CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS RELATED TO INSURRECTION

Turning to the main point, we find Article 1 Section 15 powers include: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

And we have Article 2 Section 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...

Amendment 14 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.

Interestingly we also have the following provision:
Amendment 14 section 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but

And of course we have Article I section 9 clause 2:The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Since Congressional powers are invoked here, what laws have they provided: 10 U.S. Code § 252 Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority "Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."

10 U.S. Code § 253 Further provides: The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it— (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State<, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

[MileHi]

... calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections...

Hey, that's us.

[MileHi]

This is encouraging because these treasonous sobs should not be tried in DC where “we the people” can not get a fair trial.

[TWhiteBear]

Great post and thread~~
You put a lot of work and thought on the subject.
At times, I have seen the term ‘armed insurrection’, so we can distinguish between ‘insurrection’ and ‘armed insurrection.
TWB

[sevlex]

Just because you don’t see evidence of Sessions doing anything in the open doesn’t mean he isn’t quietly assembling ironclad cases of treason in the background.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Rust never sleeps.

[AndyJackson]

Q anon post 709 Feb 10 2018 05:23:04

You will cease to exist.
Truth to power.
How’s the bunker these days?
[14] live
[Hello]
[PEOC force failed]

[AndyJackson]

the constitutional concept is “insurrection” not “armed insurrection”

[AndyJackson]

What folks miss are several things in the 14th amendment - that having ever breached an oath to the constitution by supporting insurrection you cannot serve as a senator or congressman.

The other is the automatic repudiation of debts incurred to support insurrection. How much US debt can be repudiated under this clause? It's a question worth serious research and consideration. Would it bankrupt Soros, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds? Just a question.

[MileHi]

How much US debt can be repudiated under this clause?

I read that to mean at least a whole bunch of pensions. But you are right, it could have much wider implications.

Also, this caught my eye:

A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it;

I guess we lost that one...

Thanks for putting this together!