She insists it’s about the rule of law. And not political. Not in any way.
“Maine Secretary of State Claims Politics Played ‘No Role’ in Booting Trump Off Ballot,” is how The Epoch Times headlined the story.
Secretary of State Shenna Bellows has unilaterally barred former President Donald Trump from the Maine presidential primary ballot. As in the Colorado case, the excuse rests with the January 6, 2021, protest rally and mob entrance into the capitol building. She says that “the weight of evidence” she “reviewed indicates that it was an insurrection.”
Knowing what real insurrections are, and what words mean, and the long history of protests that get out of hand, including in recent times, most non-partisan people, as well as all Trump supporters, must conclude just the opposite: no insurrection was even attempted.
Bellows may actually believe that the January 6 events constituted an insurrection, that her job allows her to do what has never been done in American history, and that this would be good for the nation.
On the insurrection issue, she and Democrats rely upon motivated reasoning. People worked up in a cause can believe almost anything that would aid the cause. Still, the common-sense guess is that almost no one really believes her . . . but of course her Democratic comrades must pretend.
On the scope of her position, prudence would usually steer a partisan such as herself away from doing such a radical thing.
On the good of the nation, the clear hyperpartisan appearance would exacerbate tensions around the country, widening the divide into a chasm.
What may really be in evidence, though, is that leftists are mimicking the radicalism of the pandemic lockdowns, driven by the sheer frenzy of their vision of themselves as embodiments of righteousness . . . always to exercise arbitrary power.
An enthusiasm that spreads virally. As a mania.
Thus does extremism work.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
12 replies on “Enthusiasm for Extremism in Action”
Trump summoned a mob to Washington to stop the official counting of electoral,votes in a crazed attempt to stay in power. He is guilty of starting an insurrection, and the other 94 CRIMINAL indictments. He is not conservative. Now claim he never took an oath to the Constitution and says his second termmwolll be about “revenge and retribution.” How can you possibly support him?
I’m one of your non-partisan people and sometimes can’t believe how extensively your partisanship colors your worldview. Here’s the definition of an insurrection: “a violent uprising against an authority or government.” Does Jan. 6 qualify? Well, let’s see: a mob stormed the Capitol, fought with police, and forced its way into the building with the intent to stop certification of the 2020 election results. Moreover, they hunted the vice-president and some members of Congress with the stated desire to do them harm. What about this do you not get? Now, whether Trump is ‘responsible’ is a legitimate other question. If he had physically led the mob, as he tried to do, with the same results, then no question of his culpability. But of course it may well have been just a peaceful protest if he had. As it actually played out, did he, from the safety of the WH, ‘encourage’ the insurrection? There is a much finer line here than you appear prepared to see….
The people on here are part of Trump’s cult.
Nonsense. Many of us never voted for him in any past election and won’t vote for him in any coming election. (As I’ve repeatedly noted, I have refused for some decades to vote for any Presidential candidate, considering them all unworthy of holding the office.)
The nobility of their cause coincidentally always seems to require that they personally collect more personal power. Or cash.
Are you on drugs! Insurrection: “a violent uprising against an authority or government”
What don’t you get about January 6th? It was violent against the congress including threats to hang Mike pence!
Another theory: it’s kitchen sink time.
The J6 hearings didn’t work. The Jack Smith / Alvin Bragg / Letitia James et al haven’t worked to diminish support for Trump. And Biden himself is flailing. He’s trying to revive the J6 argument with an appearance at Valley Forge as the third anniversary approaches. Desperate times call for desperate measures.. Primary season is on the horizon. Throw the kitchen sink.
Once again:
• Trump encouraged a demonstration. Not all demonstrations are riots; not all riots are insurrections.
• Almost immediately after Trump began to discourage violence on Twitter, Twitter cut him off.
Elliding essential points, to arrive at a false proposition that Trump encouraged insurrection, is fundamentally dishonest.
But an essential issue here is that Democratic officials are attempting to do an end-run against the legal presumption of innocence. Trump has not even been tried for insurrection, let alone found guilty. Pontifications by Lawrence O’Donnell &alii are being substituted for legal procedure. A trial would in fact spill a great many beans that the deep state and corporate left do not want spilt.
On the plain language of Public Law 114-328 — “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States” — the January 6 Capitol riot meets the definition of an “insurrection,” although there’s still the question of the nature and importance of Trump’s involvement in it.
As for “ballot access,” it was a given that once the government seized control of ballots and started excluding people from them, the two wings of the Democrat/Republican uniparty would eventually start using that control against each other rather than just against third party and independent candidates.
A public law passed in 2017 can determine the meaning of any term for purposes of interpretting said law, but does not define the meaning of “insurrection” for purposes of interpretting the US Constitution.
I need slightly to correct myself. Public Law 114-328 was passed in late December of 2016, to go into effect in 2017.
But my principal point remains: Ordinary legislation does not establish thr meaning of language for purposes of interpretting the US Constitution. (If such legislation had such effect, then a plurality in Congress could effectively amend the Constitution at-will.)
You’re right.
Ordinary legislation doesn’t establish the meanings of terms from more than a century before.
So we just have to go to the long-understood meaning of the term. It goes back to at least the 14th century Middle English insurreccion meaning “(a) An uprising against a ruler, the laws, etc.; rebellion, revolt; also, a riot, rioting, civil disorder; (b) an unlawful armed assault; (c) ?an armed attack, war.”