"I would be very interested in seeing the plan to replace the government or any actual plan to overturn the government."
The plan was, if at all possible, to force congress to certify Donald Trump as the winner of the election, a subversion of our constitutional order (and a self-coup). Failing that, the plan was to at least not certify anyone as winner as a step towards keeping Trump in the White House.
I think it is very unimaginitive to think that an attempt by the loser of the election to stay in power, using force among other criminal schemes, does not qualify as an insurrection.
Similar steps, not well known because overshadowed by the Civil War, were taken between November 1860 and Lincoln's inauguration with the goal of preventing Lincoln's inauguration, and the framers of the 14th Amendment had those events very much in mind.
As described here, in a brief by constituional scholars Vikram and Akhil Amar:
So you believe the plan was for a bunch of unarmed yahoos to burst through the barriers, to break into the building, for some to fight with police while others wandered the halls seemingly aimlessly, to disrupt the certification indefinitely to keep Trump in office for another term? And then they all got tired and wandered off into the night? Did the masterminds of this "insurrection" not consider what would eventually happen to their unarmed hotheads when more police in riot gear or National Guard troops arrived? They didn't - because there was no plan. There was no strategic or tactical thinking going on. The mob was unencumbered by the thought process. There is no evidence of a real plan or anything beyond the equivalent of a toddler's tantrum by a bunch of adults who should have known better.
As for Trump, he was laboring under the massive misconception that the election had been stolen from him through a series of illegal actions in several states. His narcissistic ego would not allow him to accept that this was it and it's time to concede and move on. He stepped boldly across several ethical boundaries and appears to have trod on the red line between legal and illegal in attempts to get officials to help him, including castigating his own Vice President for refusing to exceed his Constitutional authority. And Yet ... That does not constitute insurrection. It was horrible. It was wrong. It was destructive and corrosive. It may have been illegal and he might be subject to prosecution for it. But he did not plan or participate in an armed uprising. There was no insurrection in the legal sense.
No insurrection.
No 14th Amendment.
And with regard to the brief, saying the 14th Amendment was written to address election issues Lincoln faced (years after his assassination) strikes me as akin to saying the Civil War was started over States Rights issues. The wording of that clause of the amendment specifically applies to the Confederates who served in the CSA government or military.
And here's the biggest reason for not expanding the definitions and sticking it to Trump - Trump is ephemeral. He will be gone before long one way or another. But the repercussions of how he is treated will go on for decades (if we last that long). The Democrats are opening Pandoras Box of Political Plagues. The Republicans will now feel free to do the same. An eye for an eye. And soon there won't be enough eye patches to go around in Washington DC. It could start soon. It looks like Trump and Biden will face off again. (Welcome to another exciting episode of The Biggest Loser.) If Trump loses after being left off ballots in a few states, we could see the right becoming as violent and ugly as the left were in 2020. After the Democrats have demonized not only Trump but anyone who doesn't actively oppose him, if Trump should somehow win, the left will be protesting, probably violently. We don't have leaders, our politicians are like dog fight promoters, and their loyal followers are the dogs. We are so screwed.
Meanwhile the Libertarians have some good ideas but can't find a candidate and platform that looks both rational and normal. And the Socialist, Green, and other parties are even farther out on their ideological limbs than the Libertarians.
"I would be very interested in seeing the plan to replace the government or any actual plan to overturn the government."
The plan was, if at all possible, to force congress to certify Donald Trump as the winner of the election, a subversion of our constitutional order (and a self-coup). Failing that, the plan was to at least not certify anyone as winner as a step towards keeping Trump in the White House.
I think it is very unimaginitive to think that an attempt by the loser of the election to stay in power, using force among other criminal schemes, does not qualify as an insurrection.
Similar steps, not well known because overshadowed by the Civil War, were taken between November 1860 and Lincoln's inauguration with the goal of preventing Lincoln's inauguration, and the framers of the 14th Amendment had those events very much in mind.
As described here, in a brief by constituional scholars Vikram and Akhil Amar:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295994/20240118094034746_Trump%20v%20Anderson.pdf
So you believe the plan was for a bunch of unarmed yahoos to burst through the barriers, to break into the building, for some to fight with police while others wandered the halls seemingly aimlessly, to disrupt the certification indefinitely to keep Trump in office for another term? And then they all got tired and wandered off into the night? Did the masterminds of this "insurrection" not consider what would eventually happen to their unarmed hotheads when more police in riot gear or National Guard troops arrived? They didn't - because there was no plan. There was no strategic or tactical thinking going on. The mob was unencumbered by the thought process. There is no evidence of a real plan or anything beyond the equivalent of a toddler's tantrum by a bunch of adults who should have known better.
As for Trump, he was laboring under the massive misconception that the election had been stolen from him through a series of illegal actions in several states. His narcissistic ego would not allow him to accept that this was it and it's time to concede and move on. He stepped boldly across several ethical boundaries and appears to have trod on the red line between legal and illegal in attempts to get officials to help him, including castigating his own Vice President for refusing to exceed his Constitutional authority. And Yet ... That does not constitute insurrection. It was horrible. It was wrong. It was destructive and corrosive. It may have been illegal and he might be subject to prosecution for it. But he did not plan or participate in an armed uprising. There was no insurrection in the legal sense.
No insurrection.
No 14th Amendment.
And with regard to the brief, saying the 14th Amendment was written to address election issues Lincoln faced (years after his assassination) strikes me as akin to saying the Civil War was started over States Rights issues. The wording of that clause of the amendment specifically applies to the Confederates who served in the CSA government or military.
And here's the biggest reason for not expanding the definitions and sticking it to Trump - Trump is ephemeral. He will be gone before long one way or another. But the repercussions of how he is treated will go on for decades (if we last that long). The Democrats are opening Pandoras Box of Political Plagues. The Republicans will now feel free to do the same. An eye for an eye. And soon there won't be enough eye patches to go around in Washington DC. It could start soon. It looks like Trump and Biden will face off again. (Welcome to another exciting episode of The Biggest Loser.) If Trump loses after being left off ballots in a few states, we could see the right becoming as violent and ugly as the left were in 2020. After the Democrats have demonized not only Trump but anyone who doesn't actively oppose him, if Trump should somehow win, the left will be protesting, probably violently. We don't have leaders, our politicians are like dog fight promoters, and their loyal followers are the dogs. We are so screwed.
Meanwhile the Libertarians have some good ideas but can't find a candidate and platform that looks both rational and normal. And the Socialist, Green, and other parties are even farther out on their ideological limbs than the Libertarians.
Your eagerness to put words in my mouth leads me to think you aren't really here in good faith, so good day to you, sir.