Is Armed Rebellion a Legal Right for Americans? ~ VIDEO

Opinion

The most important case against Donald Trump today is, arguably, the one presently before the U.S. Supreme Court: Trump vs. Anderson, a case coming out of Colorado.

“The Colorado Supreme Court held that President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from serving as president under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Counsel for the Petitioner Trump argued the holding is wrong for many reasons. And he is correct.

If the majority of the Court concurs (hopefully a unanimous decision), that will send a clear message to the States, forbidding them from denying the electorate the right to vote for their candidate of choice for U.S. President merely on the ground that a State Government proclaims a candidate for Public Office, an insurrectionist under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is not our purpose here to go into an examination of and explication of the import of Section 3 nor to go into the arguments pro and con that scholars and commentators have elucidated to date for keeping Trump’s name on or off the ballot in Colorado (and by extension, on or off the ballot in other States), based on the interpretation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The idea of Trump as an insurrectionist is false, even absurd!?

He isn’t an insurrectionist, but it is not the purpose of this article to go into the whys and wherefores of that issue either.

But it is necessary to discuss the concept of ‘insurrection’ as it relates to this Country.

During the Oral Argument on February 8, 2024, the High Court dealt at length with the import of “insurrection.” The transcript mentions the word at least 85 times. Our purpose here is to propound a matter the High Court didn’t consider and, to our knowledge, no one has. Yet it is one that implicates a matter that goes to the heart of the salient issue:

Whether the American people do have the right to rebel against tyranny, and from a legal standpoint, apart from the decidedly moral one.

There is a question of what Government’s acts are so egregious as to amount to Tyranny of Government and, therefore, sufficient justification for the citizenry’s taking up arms against that Government.

But even that question isn’t the first and central question to be asked and answered.

For, we don’t get to that question if, under no set of circumstances, Americans are not legally permitted to take up arms against the Government.

That is an argument many scholars have made, and it is presumed by the myriad of articles one comes across in the mainstream media.

The inference is that, even if the Government does become indisputably dictatorial, hence tyrannical, the citizenry does not have a legal (statutory) right or a right under the Constitution to use force of arms to topple that Government.

But is that true? And, if so, what recourse do Americans have against Tyranny if not through armed rebellion?

And we are assuming here that a Despot would not permit a fair election. There cannot, of course, be free and fair elections in a dictatorship. That would be a contradiction in terms.

So, if the public cannot resort to the Electoral Process to rid itself of a Tyrant, and if the public cannot resort to force of arms, then where does that leave the American public? Nowhere!

This suggests the Constitution tacitly bears the seeds of its dissolution, except for the fact that the public is well-armed. And that explains why the Government—this Biden Administration, along with the Press and social media—has long argued for stringent constraints on firearms and continues to do so, more and more vociferously with each passing month.

The Radical Left knows how to scream and shout but falls short of logic and internal consistency in its positions.

Trump versus Anderson is a case in point.

If, as the Colorado Supreme Court holds, Trump is an insurrectionist whose name must not appear on the State ballot for U.S. President, based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, then the Colorado Supreme Court has just held that the Government can itself be an insurrectionist, i.e., a Tyrant.

Colorado is saying that the Second Branch of Government, the U.S. President, Donald Trump, was an insurrectionist, i.e., a Tyrant (Despot) when he served as President through his actions on January 6, 2021.

But then, if the head of Government is an insurrectionist, i.e., a Tyrant, then, by logical implication, that provides a legal, not simply a moral, basis for the American people to rebel against Tyranny whenever they see Tyranny in their Government.

Colorado is itself a rebel, then, rebelling against what it has determined to be a U.S. President as an Insurrectionist, namely, a Tyrant. Colorado is claiming a legal basis for acting against Trump qua Tyrant, keeping his name off the ballot in the upcoming 2024 General Election, to prevent “the Tyrant” from becoming U.S. President again.

Apart from Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the word ‘insurrection’ does not appear in the Constitution but in the Congressional Statute, yet undefined.

18 USCS § 2383 (Rebellion and Insurrection) sets forth,

“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

Well, if Trump, as U.S. President, can be considered an insurrectionist, i.e., a Tyrant, then so can Joe Biden.

The point isn’t theoretical. The Colorado Supreme Court has proclaimed that Donald J. Trump, as President Trump, was an insurrectionist.

Again, this is tantamount to saying Trump was a Tyrant and that Colorado can act against a Tyrant by preventing that Tyrant from ever again serving as President or holding any other Federal Government position.

Colorado’s act of rebellion, in this instance, amounts to preventing Colorado voters from voting for a Past President of the United States to serve another term in Office, whom Colorado has declared to have been a Tyrant through an act or acts of insurrection having taken place on January 6, 2021.

This has serious implications for the Biden Government.

If the Colorado Supreme Court is correct, then the question of whether the Biden Government is tyrannical is not theoretical. It is real and deeply problematic.

It means that if the Biden Government truly is tyrannical (whether it is Biden and his Government or some shadowy, sinister force behind Biden and his Administration orchestrating Biden’s actions and the actions of his Administration), then the American citizenry does have a legal basis for overthrowing the Insurrectionist Despot Tyrant Joe Biden and all those connected with him.

Again, keep in mind Colorado has said that Trump was an insurrectionist at a time when Trump still served as President of the United States, wielding legitimate Article 2 power and authority, as President.

So, from a logical point of view, does Colorado want to maintain that Trump is, or even could be, an insurrectionist in his capacity as U.S. President? If so, then the State just opened the door to the possibility that Biden and those behind him can be insurrectionists, ergo tyrants, and, if so, then the armed public has the legal right to depose them under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Insurrection by the Government against the citizenry is tyranny. And the citizenry now has a statutory basis to revolt against a Tyrant if Colorado is correct. And a better claim can be made that Biden and his puppet masters are more the Tyrant than Trump ever was or could be, and Biden is presently serving as President. Trump isn’t.

Do Americans have a legal right to overthrow the tyrannical Biden Government and those behind him, then?

Colorado just made a case for that and never even knew it!

While we take exception to Colorado’s argument for proclaiming a U.S. President can be found to be an insurrectionist under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, we would argue that the right to rebel against the tyranny of Government is provided for in another section of the Constitution, through which the citizenry does have the legal authority to rebel against tyranny. It is right there in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Is it any wonder that the Radical Left in our Country and the Tyrant in command of our Government are attempting to abolish the Second Amendment? Surely, a Tyrannical Government would have reason to.

• Our armed citizenry is a threat to a Tyrannical Federal Government.

A Government operating within the bounds of the law need not fear the armed citizenry.

The Biden Administration (and those orchestrating the Biden Administration’s every move) do fear the armed citizenry. They have made their fear of the armed citizenry known through executive actions and vehement, virulent protestations against the Second Amendment.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Noveske Gen 4 AR-15 5.56 Rifle - 13.7" Light Infidel	Rainier Arms	$ 3016.25
	Noveske Gen 4 AR-15 5.56 Rifle - 13.7" Infidel	Rainier Arms	$ 2897.50
	Faxon Firearms Gunner AR-15 5.56 Nato Rifle Lenth Barrel 4150 QPQ - 18	Rainier Arms	$ 179.40
	Ar-15 Super Duty Rifle Build Kit 5.56mm - Ar-15 5.56 Super Duty Rifle Build Kit Ddc	Brownells.com	$ 1834.99

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.