Update no.1147

 Update from the Sunland

No.1147

1.1.24 – 7.1.24

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- On Wednesday, lawyers for [the person who shall no longer be named] filed their petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court—Trump v. Anderson [], his appeal of the Colorado disqualification—Anderson v Griswold [2023 CO 63; Case No. 23SA300] [1145]. A writ of certiorari is a formal order issued by a higher court, instructing a lower court to submit the entire judicial record of a case for review. Whether the Supremes accept the case and issue a writ is yet to be determined. The petition conveniently ignores a direct reference to a key element of the Colorado ruling, i.e., the application of §3 in election qualification or disqualification is “self-executing” in that it does not need a §5 enabling legislation. Further, Congress did in fact pass legislation making §3 at felonious crime as codified in 18 U.S.C. §2383. Qualification or disqualification is not a crime; it is simply as stated in §3. The secretary of state for Colorado simply applied the text as written. No enabling legislation is required unless a prosecutor wishes to charge the man with the crime of insurrection [under 18 U.S.C. §2383]. Contrary to the implications of the petition, [the person who shall no longer be named] is not (yet) charged with a crime of insurrection, only that he disqualified from holding any federal office including president and thus not qualified to be on the ballot. Further, the petition appeals directly to the strict constructionists on the bench in noting that §3 “lists offices in descending order” and “it does not list the presidency,” therefore, §3 was not intended to apply to the president. The petition also seeks to convince the justices they should not believe what they saw and heard on 6.January.2020. What we all witnessed that day was not insurrection, they say. Those lawyers want us to believe that January 6^th was just a political protest and does not qualify as an insurrection as defined at the time of the 14^th Amendment (1868). Well, for the record, Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language of 1828 defines insurrection as:

INSURRECTION, noun [Latin insurgo; in and surgo, to rise.]

1. 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.

It is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. Ezra 4:19.

2. A rising in mass to oppose an enemy. [Little Used.]

Please note: the 1828 definition does not mention any word of armed or violent. It is “open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state.” What happened before us all on January 6^th was a classic, by definition, insurrection today and in 1828. These damn lawyers are wrong outright. I guess they believe we would never check the definition of “insurrection” at the time of the 14^th Amendment’s drafting and ratification.

Once more, I illuminate that §3 of the 14^th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with any citizen’s right to vote for whomever they wish. The §3 is disqualification quite akin to Article II, §1, Clause 5 qualifications. People can write in whomever they wish. Votes for a disqualified candidate, like Mickey Mouse or Batman, will not be counted.

We did not have to wait long. On Friday, the Supremes agreed to hear the appeal of the Colorado case and issued their writ of certiorari. They will hear oral arguments on 8.February.2024 and might well issue their decision days later. We shall soon see how far the current Supremes will go to defend insurrection against the Constitution and the established government.

I cannot imagine any neutral legal mind will buy the arguments offered in the petition noted above. It is replete with incorrect and outright false statements. Of course, as is usually the case with this particular defendant, there are elements of truth mixed in to make the whole petition seem real and factual.

 

Readers of this humble forum have endured my rants about social conservatives and the right-wing religious zealots who have been and remain the moral projectionists within our society (and others, truth be told).  I am old enough to remember the blue laws imposed by the moral projectionists on every single citizen . . . whether they believe or not. What are the blue laws you ask? They are laws that prohibit a laundry list of businesses and activities on Sunday—the Christian day of worship. Many stores and other businesses were prohibited from being open. Certain commercial products could not be sold, e.g., alcohol, condoms, medicine, lottery tickets, et al. Most stores even in the most liberal states were closed. In conservative states, all stores were closed; no business was done. It took decades to undo the blue laws, and there are still holdouts to this very day. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with anyone exercising their freedom of choice to not shop, or buy condoms, or anything else on Sunday. But, by what right do they have to impose their choices on everyone else? I still have faith that we will one day mature as a society and put things in proper perspective. Our freedoms are NOT defined by the lowest common denominator, nor are they divisible by the states or anyone else. Freedom is freedom, period. If you do not want to do something, don’t do it . . . and do not condemn anyone else for making different choices. This once grand republic is not and never has been a Christian nation. It is in fact a country that respects all religions including none, period, full stop, end of story.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1146:

“I’ve just read your update. The year has started with identical problems to the last one! What of the future then? I’ll tell you shall I. Leaders, yes we need good honest men and women to present without compromise the wishes of the people who placed them into power. Not bragging ‘I’m better than the last guy’ characters. We need influential leaders, not those who spend their paid lives criticising and masquerading whilst hidden under their appointed power.

“Good honest men and women, yes they do exist, let’s put them into authoritative positions. 

“Good luck with the future Cap-with the mess that Putin is creating across our planet we will need a strong determined vein of authentic leadership.”

My reply:

Yea verily! There seems to be common threads these days. The future portends a rocky road as we sort through these myriad challenges to our representative democracy. A substantial faction within this once grand republic have decided their beliefs, values, and opinions are more important than the constitutional democratic principles that have sustained us for two plus centuries. While my faith in our democracy has been shaken, I remain guardedly confident we shall overcome as we have exceeded other challenges in our history. But, it is going to be rough, messy, and sometimes ugly.

Oh my, you are quite right. We desperately need inspirational, influential leaders to lead us through these minefields. Churchill and Roosevelt were not perfect men, but they saw the path many others could not. They found a way to guide us on that path to the “sunlit uplands” of a better tomorrow. There is still hope such a leader might rise to prominence for today’s task, but I have not seen that leader yet. In fact, one of the men in this country wants to be a dictator since he is convinced that is a better form of governance. A major test for us is rapidly approaching.

Yes, there are good, honest, women and men among us, but convincing them to take on the burdens of leadership is proving to be harder and harder.

Putin has taken advantage of his perception of our internal political convulsions. President Obama (and his successor) failed to do what needed to be done in 2014 & subsequent. President Biden has done his best to help Ukraine short of committing troops to the fight. Now, congressional Republicans standing in the way of doing what has to be done . . . yet one more reason to vote them out of office.

Dictator Xi publicly stated that Taiwan would be reunited with the PRC this year, so things could get very hot, quite quickly.

“Long journeys begin with a single step.” We must persevere.

Keep the faith, my friend.

 

Comment to the Blog:

“I applaud Maine and Colorado for their support of the Constitution. Sad to say, Governor Newsom of California declined to join them. Newsom disappoints me. That’s important partly because he’d be a logical Presidential candidate if Biden were to retire.

“Nikki Haley probably doesn’t want people using her full, formal name. A Republican who’s also a minority is a walking conflict, like Tim Scott. She followed the party line as long as possible.”

My response to the Blog:

I join you in that applause.

I have not seen the rationale that California took to reject the §3 disqualification path. Perhaps, they did not feel it was necessary, who knows. The California decision disappoints me as well. Yes, he is a logical candidate, but he has emphatically stated he will not challenge a sitting president. So we wait.

Perhaps not, but that is her name. Yes, she has. She is another candidate who has seriously disappointed me as I wrote in Update no.1146. Pardoning Tiny is NOT about healing; it was about whitewashing a criminal’s conduct for political gain. I am disgusted. Pardoning that man is justice denied.

 

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)