Raskin, Trump, and the Forgotten Constitution: Are We Missing the Real Insurrection?
Raskin, Trump, and the Forgotten Constitution: Are We Missing the Real Insurrection?
By Ronald P. Bouchard Jr.
The January 6th events at the Capitol remain a focal point in political debates, particularly following Rep. Jamie Raskin’s recent comments advocating Trump’s disqualification from the ballot under charges of insurrection. Raskin has criticized the Supreme Court, asserting that it “failed” to disqualify Trump, whom he believes unfit for office based on allegations connected to January 6th. However, the recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States clarified the extent of presidential immunity, ruling that Trump is shielded from prosecution for official acts within the scope of his presidential duties. This ruling suggests that the Court views certain executive actions, even those that might indirectly influence political or electoral processes, as protected under the doctrine of executive immunity.
As we examine the constitutional process set for January 6th, including the lawful objection and debate procedure under the 12th Amendment, Raskin’s call for disqualification prompts further questions: Would disrupting the certification process—an avenue that could have validated claims of election irregularities—have served Trump’s interests? And does the evidence support the label of insurrection? In light of the Court’s reaffirmation of the boundaries of presidential authority and immunity, these issues demand a rigorous analysis, especially given the complex balance the Court seeks to maintain between executive power and accountability.
What is January 6th? A Day in the Constitution That’s Bigger Than 2020
Every four years, January 6th marks an essential date in the U.S. electoral process. On this day, Congress meets in a joint session to count and certify each state’s Electoral College votes, finalizing the presidential election results. This certification process is established by the 12th Amendment, which mandates that Congress convene with the Vice President presiding over the vote count in his role as President of the Senate. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to certify these votes and includes a formal review process for members to raise concerns about electoral irregularities.
In this process, members of Congress can submit objections to any state’s electoral votes. Objections must be in writing and endorsed by at least one member from each chamber—the House and the Senate. Once an objection meets these requirements, the joint session pauses, and the House and Senate separate to debate and vote on the objection. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 further refines this procedure, allowing up to two hours of debate per objection, ensuring that each chamber has adequate time to discuss any concerns. This act also sets strict procedural limits, maintaining an orderly and lawful certification process.
This process is rooted in constitutional law and must be followed exactly. As legal maxims dictate, “When the law prescribes a method, that method, and no other, must be followed.” Any deviation from this constitutionally mandated procedure is unlawful, as the government’s authority is bound by constitutional and legal provisions. Strict adherence to this process on January 6th every four years reinforces both the stability and legitimacy of the U.S. electoral system, a reminder that lawful process is fundamental to a free republic.
Did Any Members of Congress Meet the Criterion for Objection?
The certification process was set to unfold as planned on January 6th. Members of Congress, including Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Mo Brooks, had announced in advance their intent to raise concerns about electoral irregularities, satisfying the 12th Amendment’s requirements. This structured debate could have provided Congress with an opportunity to address these concerns in a lawful setting—a vital aspect often overlooked in the heated rhetoric surrounding January 6th. The objection process could have provided a transparent venue to examine the electoral process, giving voice to concerns and offering clarity. Ironically, the violence that erupted that day disrupted the very process that could have validated Trump’s claims or, at minimum, provided a lawful forum for election concerns.
The Brunson case, which is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court, directly addresses this missed opportunity. The Brunson brothers argue that Congress neglected its duty on January 6th by not thoroughly investigating election integrity concerns raised by certain members of Congress and by millions of citizens. By failing to allow a complete review, they contend that Congress deviated from its constitutional responsibility, violating the rule of law. This case asserts that Congress is required to follow constitutional procedure precisely, particularly when the election’s integrity is questioned. The plaintiffs argue that any deviation is a serious breach, threatening the foundation of lawful government. If the Court takes up the case and rules in favor of the Brunsons, it could set a powerful precedent, clarifying Congress’s duty to investigate objections fully and reinforcing the maxim that “That which is done contrary to law is regarded as not done at all.”
What Could Trump Gain from a Complete Constitutional Process?
Had the January 6th process continued without disruption, Trump’s supporters would have had the opportunity to formally raise objections, creating a public forum for addressing election integrity concerns. This structured debate could have brought specific issues to light, such as procedural changes made without legislative approval in Pennsylvania, inconsistent voter ID and signature verification standards in Georgia, and claims of unequal treatment of voters across counties in Michigan and Wisconsin. The potential for transparency and accountability in this process aligns with John Locke’s assertion in Second Treatise of Government, §216: “When, by the arbitrary power of the prince, the electors, or ways of election, are altered, without the consent, and contrary to the common interest of the people, there also the legislative is altered.” Locke believed that unauthorized changes to election processes compromise the legitimacy of the government. Allowing the constitutional process to unfold could have offered Trump and his supporters the lawful setting needed to present their case, potentially lending credibility to their claims. Given the potential benefits of a structured debate, it seems counterintuitive to suggest that Trump would seek to disrupt a process that offered an opportunity for his concerns to be addressed openly.What Would Trump Lose if the Process Was Disrupted?
The violent events of January 6th effectively silenced these objections, obstructing the lawful, constitutional avenue for review. This disruption removed Trump’s chance to present his concerns within a legal framework, diminishing his credibility and losing him a crucial platform for formal validation. Beyond losing this legislative opportunity, the aftermath of January 6th has had a significant cost on Trump personally and financially.
In the years since, Trump has faced multiple investigations, legal battles, and public backlash, all requiring substantial financial resources and taking a toll on his reputation. Legal fees alone, related to various investigations and cases surrounding his actions before, during, and after January 6th, have been a substantial burden. Additionally, his businesses and brand have faced challenges due to this intensified scrutiny, impacting his long-standing commercial ventures. Thus, the disruption on January 6th has not only obstructed the constitutional process that could have supported his claims but also imposed a lasting cost on Trump’s finances, reputation, and legal standing, complicating any path to political or public redemption.
Does It Make Sense That Trump Would Want This Disruption?
Given these factors, the notion that Trump would intentionally seek to disrupt a process that could have validated his claims raises serious questions. By ensuring the certification process followed the 12th Amendment exactly, Trump stood to gain a transparent, lawful hearing to address election concerns. Since January 6th, Trump has sought opportunities to present these claims in court, yet nearly every attempt has been dismissed on procedural grounds, often without a substantive examination of the evidence he claims to possess. No court to date has fully examined this evidence; most of Trump’s cases have been rejected on technicalities like lack of standing or jurisdiction rather than the claims’ merits. Disrupting the certification process would only reinforce obstacles to presenting his claims within a lawful framework, making it counterintuitive to believe he would have favored such disruption.
Voltaire’s Warning: The Importance of Criticism in a Free Society
Reflecting on these points, Voltaire’s words resonate: “If you want to know who controls you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” In recent years, numerous examples demonstrate that questioning election outcomes has increasingly been met with harsh criticism or even legal action. This trend often labels those raising concerns as extremists, a pattern that directly conflicts with the principles of a free republic and the space for public inquiry it requires.
One such example is Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of the election-integrity group True the Vote, who faced extensive legal battles and investigations after advocating for transparency in voter rolls and ballot handling. Engelbrecht’s experience, including subpoenas and scrutiny of her organization, is often seen as a politically motivated response to her transparency efforts.
Similarly, Tina Peters, a former Mesa County Clerk in Colorado, encountered significant legal repercussions after alleging election discrepancies. Peters raised concerns about voting machine data in her county, which led to criminal charges and legal battles that many interpret as punitive measures for her outspoken stance on election integrity.
Project Veritas, known for its undercover journalism, also faced significant retaliation after publishing videos it claimed exposed irregularities in election-related practices. Project Veritas was subjected to an FBI raid and a defamation lawsuit, sparking debate over whether investigative journalism, especially on sensitive topics like election integrity, faces disproportionate legal action.
In Arizona, Kari Lake filed a legal challenge questioning the 2022 gubernatorial race’s handling. However, her concerns were largely dismissed by the courts, and mainstream media outlets frequently labeled her views as “baseless.” Lake’s experience is emblematic of a trend where questioning election integrity is met with accusations of conspiracy, sidelining specific claims and reinforcing a narrative that discourages critical inquiry.
Finally, even Elon Musk encountered media and advocacy group backlash after expressing opinions on election transparency on social media. Musk’s calls for transparency led to criticism, with some groups pushing for increased censorship on platforms like Twitter (now X) for election-related content, a response that brings into question the boundaries of free speech in public forums.
These instances echo Voltaire’s observation that when certain criticisms are suppressed, it is essential to question who benefits from that suppression. In a society valuing free inquiry, space for legitimate questions about critical processes like elections is vital. Suppression or retaliatory actions conflict with the principles of open discourse that underpin a free republic. Public dialogue demands that individuals be free to question and critique without being marginalized or penalized, as it is through this discourse that the principles of liberty and accountability are preserved.
A Founder’s Perspective on Rebellion and Insurrection
The Founding Fathers recognized rebellion as a direct effort to dismantle lawful government, not adherence to constitutional processes. Trump’s supporters argue his actions aimed to protect constitutional integrity by advocating for lawful review of objections. No court has found January 6th participants guilty of insurrection, and legally, insurrection requires motive—an intent to overthrow or dismantle government structures. Since the participants sought to uphold lawful processes, it is inconsistent to classify their actions as insurrection.
James Madison warned about factionalism, stating, “In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature.” Madison’s insight emphasizes that lawful governance—and insurrection—is marked by efforts to dismantle, not uphold, legal frameworks.
A Final Question: What About Raskin’s Allegations of Insurrection?
With these constitutional points in mind, Raskin’s recent statements advocating Trump’s disqualification raise deeper questions. The 14th Amendment outlines disqualification criteria only for those found guilty of insurrection. If Raskin seeks to remove a lawful candidate without conviction, we must ask: who is truly undermining the principles of a free republic?
Raskin’s focus on disqualifying Trump overlooks the established fact that Vice President Kamala Harris does not meet the “natural-born citizen” requirement under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Affidavits state that at the time of Harris’s birth, neither parent was a U.S. citizen, disqualifying her under The Law of Nations definition by Emer de Vattel, which describes a natural-born citizen as someone “born in the country of parents who are citizens.” This interpretation, endorsed by Benjamin Franklin and reinforced by the 1790 Naturalization Act’s parental citizenship requirements, remains uncontested, creating a presumption of ineligibility under estoppel by acquiescence. For more information, visit We the People.
As we consider these questions, it becomes clear the public deserves transparency on constitutional standards—not selective enforcement. When disqualification is pursued without conviction, while overlooking constitutional requirements for others, we must ask: Are we missing the real insurrection?