In Part 1, I addressed the point that Article 14, Part 3 of the Constitution refers to an insurrection against the constitution, not the government. Here, I address the meaning of “insurrection.”
If you look up the word on Google, you’ll find a bunch of dictionary definitions that inevitably put it in terms of acting, usually violently, against a government. For example:
- a violent uprising against an authority or government
- an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence
- a violent action that is taken by a large group of people against the rulers of their country, usually in order to remove them from office
However, if we want to enter the (scary) mindset of the conservation SCOTUS judges who are textualists and originists to vary degrees (i.e., when it suits them) when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, it’s worth considering what the term “insurrection” meant back when Section 3 of Article 14 was written. Apparently, the most recent authoritative dictionary available at the time was Webster’s 1828 edition. Here’s his definition of “insurrection”:
A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.
The first sentence of the definition fits perfectly with what Trump attempted. The distinction between rebellion and revolt makes plain “insurrection” does not require an attack on a government, but, as highlighted in a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times, the last sentence also makes clear the term has broad latitude.
I think it’s likely that SCOTUS, or at least the conservatives on it, will find a way to weasel out of disqualifying Trump. But the more clear — and airtight — the case, the more likely they will at least go down in infamy. Little comfort, but I suppose it’s something.
