If you check around the so-called moderate to lefty sites, you can still see them calling the January 6th riot as an insurrection. But if it were an insurrection, it would be against the genuine sovereign power. However, this is not the case. The sovereign power of the United States of America is in its Constitution. Those who participated in the riot may have guilty of disorderly conduct, but there weren't trying to overthrow the Constitution.
The sovereign power also does not exist within any person or groups of persons. This is because all officers under the laws of the United States swear an allegiance to the Constitution. Look it up if you aren't clear on this. An allegiance to any group or person that is above the Constitution is itself an insurrectionary act. If those who claim that there was an insurrection, upon what basis is that made? An act against the Constitution or an act against a person or group of persons?
A person could be acting illegally, but not every illegal act is an insurrection. It is an absurdity to claim such. Need that argument go any further? To show how ridiculous that argument is, just imagine that the next time you get a speeding ticket. If everybody who got a speeding ticket was guilty of insurrection, the Republic would be untenable. The acts of January 6th are closer to a speeding ticket than a heinous crime. Anybody should be able to see that.
Even murder is not an insurrection. A riot isn't either-- even if it results in deaths. If that were so, there would have been more insurrections in our history than what is actually acknowledged as such. Certainly the riots of the summer of 2020 resulted in some deaths somewhere. Even if not, the property damage was far worse.
The riots on Jan 6th can arguably said to have been free of deaths. The only death was of a woman who was shot while attempting to go through a door inside the Capitol Building. The video showed that this was not a justifiable homicide. The worst behavior that happened that day appears to have done under the color of law.
Even if the riot resulted in many other deaths, including some members of Congress, it would not have been an insurrection. These crimes would have been against persons, not necessarily the Constitution itself. To make an assertion of otherwise would be equating members of Congress with the Constitution itself. Clearly this is at odds with the law in the document itself. In fact, it is defined in the Constitution as making war on the same. This wasn't a war, for heaven's sake. At worse, it was a riot. In some cases, it was merely disorderly behavior. Even that much can be challenged in open court.
If the people in charge of the government really had the facts on their side, and the law, why do they need to keep these people under confinement in such a manner that is not consistent witht the rights enumerated in the Constitution? They seem to be extracting forced confessions. One could argue that they may not even be able to win cases of minor offenses. If the people in charge were on the side of angels, why are they acting like this? I think the question answers itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment