First of all, thank you Reflector editorial staff for allowing the continuance of this discussion.
Mr. Nelson: Thank you for the detailed rejoinder. I read it very carefully. I think that our disagreement stems from how we focus on the actual events of Jan. 6. I agree with you, in part, that a lot of the protesters did stop short of entering the Capitol and were peaceful. I
believe this is the perspective to which you are applying the Webster’s definition of insurrection. Upon clear reflection about my previous letter, you will see that my definition relies on the perspective of the 536 people that were fulfilling their constitutionally mandated duty to count the electoral votes. They were terrified. This is clearly evidenced by the Secret Service dutifully removing the vice president of the United States. Also, private texts from members of Congress, the Capitol Police and Secret Service prove the terrified feelings of the 536 people that postponed their duty imposed by the Constitution. From this perspective, even the Webster definition is satisfied.
In my previous letter, I noted that in our democratic republic the courts need to clearly define insurrection, even though “conservative” and “liberal” legal scholars seem to agree that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (disqualification clause) is prescriptive. Our second-to-none judicial system provides an open forum where arguments will be heard. In Colorado last week, the state court (video allowed) is hearing arguments concerning, if in fact, Jan. 6 was an insurrection and whether the former president incited it, which is not protected speech. I highly recommend all citizens who still care to watch.
Finally, God bless the Secret Service, the Capitol police and the former vice president for doing their duty and keeping their oath.