DRAFT
This is a draft and not quite finished, but the interview was released today, so here it is so far – I’ve gotta go to sleep soon 😉 :
This draft started with myy Interview Prep for Stew Peters Interview Dec 22nd on The CO Ruling re Trump on the ballot.
The Supreme Court’s Concern
- What was the State of mind of Trump – What was he attempting to do if anything?
- What were the ambitions of the participants in Jan6 event – what were their reasons and ambitions?
- Whether it was an insurrection or not?
(Given: |Severity|: Demonstration > protest > riot > rebellion, > insurrection > civil war > facilitation of conquest by others) - Whether defining Jan 6th as an insurrection opens the door to more abuses of the courts in these matters?
- Whether they want to permit the states to circumvent the people, given the presidency and the electoral college are federal tests of concurrency, in lieu of a high court findings of an insurrection. Conversely, whether the court feels it is the only viable institution capable of making that decision. (Note: Probably. The legislture lacks the constraints of a court, and as such legislatures solve political questions but not legal questions. While say, impeachment is a political question (decision, agreement), insurrection is a legal question (fact,disagreement).)
- Whether they want to enable the use of similar pretenses of insurrection to disqualify any candidate by his words, his deeds, or by constructive undermining of a candidate through causing conflict and escalation independent of the will of the candidate.
- Whether they want a minority of states to deprive the majority of states and the people from a candidate. This means that if the federal legislature and if necessary the supreme court do not issue findings of insurrection or higher crimes, then then no state my deter a presidental candidate from the ballot.
- Whether any other externalities would be produced that might effect the electoral process as a test of the people by concurrency. There are plenty of reasons the people might want a radical change in the policy of the governmetn without replacing the system of government or even altering the constitutions – such as whether the deep state really exists and really is working against the interests of the people – especially where the test of concurrency exists across our constitution to preserve minority interest not advance majority interests over them.
What Were The Demands of The Jan 6 Participants?
Ask Yourself These Questions:
- What do you think the demands of the Jan 6th Participants were?
- Were they to overthrow and replace the constitution or government with a different one, or modify the constitution, or enact or withdraw legislation or law?
- Were they challenging the legitimacy of the constitution, or the goverment, or were they challenging the failure to address their concerns regarding the conduct of the election?
- Were they demanding congressional or court inquiry into the electoral process because they percieved it corrupted – and thus seeking delay of change of office until the matter was settled?
- As such, in their minds, right or wrong, did they believe they were protesting a FAILURE of the government to follow the law and due process or were they seeking?
- What did the hours of video illustrate?
Presidential Context (Trump)
- Which of those criteria above was Trump seeking? (discounting the tendency of the left’s feminine mind to magical thinking)
- What did he, in his state of mind, think and believe?
- So were the Jan 6 participants protestors or rioters, rebels, or insurrectionists?
Well, that last question requires some analysis…
So… let’s take a look...
Our Hierarchy of Courts
In the US system of law, which is under the common law, meaning ’empirically discovered law’ by the court, accumulated over time, and whether empirically discovered by concurrency, we have a hierarchy of courts from probate, to bankruptcy, to family, to civil, to criminal, and oddly, a separate one for the military. But in the continental law system they also have administrative and constitutional courts. Those courts are for juridical defense against the state (administrative courts) and against the rules the state (constitutional courts).
In the USA we are ‘privileged’ to experience all the excitement of working through a hierarchy of lower courts that are of questionable competence in matters of constitutionality – especially interpretation – before we reach the supreme court, and their army of clerks, who do settle matters of constitutionality. Worse, we have no administrative court, nor do we retain juridical defense against constitutional violations (Such as the IRS seizure of funds, or the police seizure and confiscation of assets, or the cost of their recovery, or the punishment of the individuals who act against the citizenry.) (Opinion: While some state appellate and supreme courts are adequate (if you read their findings) In my opinion everything below the federal appeals court is questionable, and it depends on the circuit – especially the 9th’s notorious williness to legislate from the bench – and only with the restoration of the supreme court’s mission by recent appointments has our strict rule of law been restored.)
Recent Rulings
Text of Colorado Ruling by Judges – District Judge Sarah Wallace
( … ) [Insert my comments from the court’s findings here]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YNyjRP44chHqLXWW_B0rEQz_JaHq5CgF/view
The Judges, cross the spectrum are divided.
Existing Constitution, Amendment, And Legislation Text
In the Constitution of the United States, the term ‘insurrection’ is used in the context of the government’s power to respond to domestic uprisings. The specific references are:
Article I, Section 8
- Clause 15: This clause gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
- Context and Implication: This empowers Congress to call upon state militias to suppress violent uprisings against the government.
Article IV, Section 4
- The Guarantee Clause: This section states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
- Interpretation: While it doesn’t use the term ‘insurrection’ explicitly, this clause is understood to refer to the federal government’s obligation to protect states against domestic unrest, which includes insurrections.
14th Amendment, Section 3
- Disqualification Clause: Enacted in the wake of the Civil War, this section addresses individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. It states that no person shall hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or any state, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Definition in the Constitution
- The Constitution does not provide a specific definition of ‘insurrection.’ The understanding of the term is derived from its general use at the time of the Constitution’s writing, historical context, and subsequent legal interpretations. In general, it refers to an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.
Supplementary Laws and Interpretation
- U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2383 (Rebellion or Insurrection): While not part of the Constitution, this section of the U.S. Code defines and sets penalties for acts of rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or its laws.
- Supreme Court Cases and Legal Interpretation: The interpretation of what constitutes an insurrection, particularly in complex cases, often falls to the judiciary, including the Supreme Court.
In conclusion, while the U.S. Constitution references the concept of insurrection, it does not provide a detailed definition, leaving this to supplementary laws and judicial interpretation. The references are primarily in the context of the powers and responsibilities of the federal government to suppress and respond to insurrections.
Definition of an Insurrection and an Uprising
All insurrections are uprisings but few uprisings are insurrections
( … ) Finish these definitions
Historical Definition of an insurrection
- Rebellion Against Authority: Typically, an insurrection was a movement against a ruling government, monarchy, or colonial power.
- Organized and Collective: Insurrections involved a collective action of a group of people, often motivated by political, social, or economic grievances.
- Use of Force: These movements frequently involved the use of force, though the scale and organization could vary from small-scale uprisings to larger, more organized rebellions.
- Intention to Change the Status Quo: The primary aim was to bring about change, whether in the form of policy reforms, independence from colonial powers, or the overthrow of an existing government.
- Permission to Change the Status Quo: In the Declaration, as in the long history of the common law, as in it’s english, germanic, roman and pre-roman sense, it is explicity stated that the people have the right and obligation to overthrow and replace the goverment under certain conditions that violate what at the time was considered the natural law and the ‘rights of englishmen’. Today we would state it’s the constitution which embodies them.
- The Context: Each individual state elects its legislature. The states elect their members of the federal legislature both house (creating equality of population’s interests) and senate (creating equality of states’s interests). The people’s advocates of each state elect the president via the electoral college.
–“The founders felt “…a straightforward popular vote was unfair, as it would give too much power to larger, more populous states. They also worried that public opinion could be too easily manipulated, and feared direct election might lead to a tyrannical leader…
The result of this struggle was the Electoral College, where the American people vote not for president and vice president, but for a smaller group of people, known as electors. These electors then cast their votes directly for president and vice president, at a meeting held several weeks after the general election.”–
The result is (in most cases) that the Electors are appointed by the parties of each state in proportion to their members in the legislators – though they may not be govt employees – only citizens.As such the Electors represent the power of the parties in the legislature of the state, and of the states collectively, in approving the president. Simple Version: the Electors are a Jury that the people’s election of the president must pass (certify).
Prior to the 17th Amendment, legislatures appointed senators from each state. This was only changed to direct vote because there was no mechanism for filling seats that sat vacant and thus impeded the Senate from producing legitimacy through the full participation of members.
(Note: the 17th amendment was most probably if not certainly a mistake, as it could have required that a sitting senator had to be replaced in order for the seat to be vacated fully, and that in the case of legislative failure in any state, the governor could appoint a temporary senator, and failing that, the majority party – which would have been the optimum combination of rules.)
In other words, the government is designed to protect minority rights against majoritarian democratic government. In this sense it is an anti-majoritarian system of participatory government.
As such the constitution puts in place a competition between the US population(for the house), the state legislature (for the senate), and the state parties (for the president) – and the people, their parties, and the states,
Change (Creep) In Definition of Insurrection – To Justify The Managerial State It’s Authority.
-
Broadening of Contexts: While originally associated primarily with large-scale rebellions against governments or colonial powers, the term has come to be applied to a wider range of actions, including smaller-scale uprisings and riots against various forms of authority or governance structures.
-
Perception and Connotation: The perception of insurrections has also changed. In some historical contexts, insurrections, especially those leading to successful independence movements or significant social change, have been viewed positively. In other cases, they are seen as illegal or illegitimate challenges to established order.
-
Modern Usage: In contemporary times, the term can be used to describe a wide range of political or social disturbances, from armed rebellions to more symbolic acts of defiance against authority.
Legal Definition of an Insurrection
-“In modern legal contexts, “insurrection” often has a specific definition and connotations. For instance, in the United States, it is defined in legal terms relating to the rebellion against the authority of the state or federal government”-
The Difference Between a Protest, A Riot, and Insurrection, a Coup, and a Civil War
Intensity and Legality: Insurrections are often perceived as more intense and are more likely to involve violence or armed resistance. They are usually considered illegal and a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the government. Public uprisings, while potentially disruptive, might not always reach the threshold of illegality or direct challenge to state sovereignty.
Court findings in the past
( … ) List the (few) cases and how they were related to the civil war or communism, and why they should have sunset
Supreme Court’s Concerns
The Court, which is a product of the Federalist Society (meaning we can make a difference) that began in 1982 by students of Yale, Harvard, and Chicago Law schools, (and of which I am clearly a product) was a reaction to the abuse of the legal system, circumventing the people and the legislature, through “Lawfare” or ‘legal activism’ throughout the fifties, sixties, and seventies (
Sovereignty: “The People Are Sovereign, The Constitution Empowers the Government on to act on Behalf of the people, under tests of concurrency in legislation and regulation, commonality in findings of law by the courts, and Due Process in the production of both. As such only the people, via their legislatures may make new law.”
Textualism and Originalism: The body of law is a ledger of positive liberties, negative constraints, including rights obligations and inalienations and the due process of their formation and application. All languge consists of measurements. And words and phrases are weights and measures of time and place. As such the legal meaning of words and phrases does not change over time. As such if the people decide the legal meaning of words and phrases must be changed, then that meaning must follow the due process of the legislature. Secondly, ‘given no law no crime” this process may not be retroactively applied to past events. As such the court, using the language (text) of the legislation or findings of the court must interpret that language as a weight and measure in the context in which it was wirtten (originalism). It can then clarify how that meaning in weights and measures
Result: “Thou Shalt Not Make New Law Via The Court”
Rule of Law: ( … ) Explain the four stages of rule of law, and how our constitution is the fourt)
The Underlying Problem
IMO The underlying problem is the postwar left’s migration from europe to the states and converting from sedition by economic false promises to the lower and working classes by claims of oppression, to sedition and social and economic false promises to minorities by claims of oppression. They said what they were goign to do, h ow they were going to do it “march through the institutions of cultural production” and
(a) The ignorance of the public
(b) the motives of the left and the education system captured by the left to keep the public ignorant so that they can be manipulated through the use of words – an act we call social consturction (and which should be a crime),
(c) the consequences of decline in education,
(d) the war against the law by the postwar left
(e) the quality of judges largely able to handle criminal, civil, and some administrative matters – even though questionably – and the few judges capable of constitutional matters because of the failures of all of the above.
(f) the eight holes in the constitution (which I’ve repaird in our reforms) that make this abuse of our law, and the circumvention of the legislatures, the constitution, and the people by modifying the public meaning of words and phrases against the people’s understanding and transparency, instead of altering the content of the constitution, legislation, regulation, and law transparently with the understanding and transparency and concurrency of the people. Why? Because the people would not tolerate it. And even men did not tolerate it – but women did, and continue to do so, as they are the deciding factor thta moves left with every election, and degrades our academic institutions with every passing year.
It’s an Easy Fix. But is it easily fixed via our captured institutions?
( … ) Explain our fix and how absurdly simple it is (it’s just ending lying and fraud in public and finishing it in the market)
