Here's another post that doesn't really say anything new, but maybe it can be written in a way that can encourage those who may be interested to think about it a little differently. Perhaps more constructively as well, but that may be ambitious.
At a State of the Union address during the Reagan Presidency, the then President said that there were three words in the Constitution that makes us different than any other country---"We the People". Back in the days when the Constitution was being written, there was talk about making George Washington the King of the newly minted country called the United States. Instead, George Washington presided over the Convention which gave the country a completely different way of governance. That governance was meant to be from the people, and not to the people. Power and sovereignty flowed FROM the people--- as opposed to the other way around. Prior to that, it was the other way around. To a large extent, it is still true today.
This dynamic is being played out this very day in the discussion about a certain event that happened on January 6th, 2021. For some, it was called an "insurrection". To others, it is called a "riot", or "disturbance". The event itself wasn't much of an "insurrection", as nobody was armed. This is part of the point I wish to address here. For it is this: Where is the "sovereignty" that is being violated, if the violation is said to be insurrectionary? The people who came to that place on January 6th weren't trying to overturn the Constitution, nor any of its laws. The were merely contesting the manner in which the laws were being applied. This hardly seems insurrectionary, nor revolutionary. For if this is a nation of laws, it is certainly game to question HOW those laws are being enforced.
On the other hand, if it is a nation of MEN, then it IS insurrectionary to question the AUTHORITY of those in power. The notion of where power comes from is at issue here. It isn't even about who won the election. It is about how its LAWS are to be enforced. If the group that came there could be satisfied with the accuracy and fidelity to law, and protested ANYWAY, then there's a problem. However, there is good reason to question how the laws are being carried out. A tyrant will brook no opposition. Whereas, in a DEMOCRACY, the will of the people is the sovereign. This is opposed to anyone who should try to USURP authority, no matter where the source comes from, from within or without.
In short, if the people truly got the hearing they should have gotten, then there would be no reasonable basis to which to object. But that didn't happen. The courts sidestepped the issue, and still are.
If the courts cannot be relied upon, then what can? In the absence of leadership, a vacuum occurred, and nature abhors a vaccuum. There could have been a reasonable outcome to all this, but that was not allowed. There was still two weeks before inauguration day, and the Constitution provided a way to decide who was to be president if the election could yield no outcome. Was time really that critical at that moment?
Some would argue that that way was taken. But was it necessary those who participated in the "riot" as being somehow guilty of prevented the lawful performance of any duty? For a few hours perhaps, but is that really that critical?
A nation of laws could handle such a situation. But a nation of men can brook no dissent. The hammer must come down and come down hard. The "strongman" cannot allow anyone to challenge his authority. But what harm is there if the standard is the law? If authority comes from the law, and the challenge is found to be in error, then any further disturbance is not to be allowed. But did these people really mean to challenge the law itself? If not, then how can it be insurrection?
Words may fail me. It has always seemed to me that the controversy could have been handled in a better way, and somebody wanted trouble. The courts dropped the ball- did they intend to? Maybe the fix was in, but if it was really fixed, then whatever the people think doesn't really matter, now does it? If so, the Constitution that George Washington intended for the USA to have, is no longer in effect. It is now a nation of MEN, not laws. Those in charge would like to pretend otherwise, but reality says otherwise. What we are seeing is an USURPATION, not a continuation. If it is now a nation of MEN, then there has been a coup.
Briefly, a nation of laws would permit dissent on the basis of law. A nation of men would permit no dissent at all. The sovereignty gives the authority. If the true authority is in MEN, then MEN cannot tolerate dissent. Only a nation of laws can permit dissent, because it is in dissent that the law can be ascertained for what it is, and what it can do. A nation of MEN cannot afford that. A nation of laws DEPENDS upon it. A nation of laws is bottom up, that gets its authority from the people. Top down governance proceeds from the strong man, always has, and always will.
