We Should Listen to Merriam-Webster, after All

    One senator -- that would be Mike Lee out of Utah -- suggests Donald Trump should not be excluded from the ballot due to insurrection because, well, none of the defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol were convicted of insurrection.
   Seditious conspiracy, yes, but not insurrection. We will wonder, though, but what they aren't basically the same thing.
   Those who do not like Trump being removed from the ballot also note that Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection. How can you remove him from the ballot until the legal system finds him guilty? Due process, you know. 
    The simple answer to that is that it is the courts who are disbarring him. It is the state supreme court that disbarred him in Colorado, and the disbarment in Maine will not take effect unless and until the state court determines he is guilty. That is due process. That is the courts determining guilt. 
   But wait, the U.S. Code spells the crime out this way: "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."
   Has Trump been convicted in that fashion? Does he have 10 years coming? No. Will he be convicted in that fashion in Maine or Colorado? No. But, perhaps he and the rioters should have been charged with insurrection or rebellion.  The reason they weren't probably is because it is hard to get a conviction for insurrection. You basically have to prove intent to try to frustrate or subvert the government. "Intent" can be a difficult word to prove. The defendants would say they were just protesting a farce election, that's all. 
   So, they were marched off to jail on lesser charges: entering a restricted area, impeding an official proceeding, etc.
    Dictionaries don't convict. At least not usually. Merriam-Webster defines insurrection as, "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." 
   If you are thinking this leaves Trump off the hook, you are wrong. The U.S. Constitution says anyone who has taken an oath of office to defend the U.S. and then engages in insurrection -- and it uses that word without defining it -- cannot be an officer of the United States. If the Constitution does not define what insurrection is, that leaves it to the dictionary to do so. Merriam-Webster gets a voice in the matter, after all.
   And, here's an additonal thought: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the defendants of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. There is no reason to bar them from holding office, and that is what the amendment is all about.
   But, Trump? Yes, it applies to him. And since the Fourteenth Amendment is a separate law from what is in the U.S. Code, it does not need to answer to the U.S. Code. It is a higher law and not subject to it. Trump does not need to be charged or convicted of a violation of the U.S. penal code. No, he can be guilty of violating the U.S. Constitution. That is quite enough.
    He needs to answer to the Constitution, and stop trying to shift the issue to the U.S. Code. Federal laws cannot shield you from the Constitution.