So far as I know, no one, either civilian or official, has been charged with insurrection, which should give you an indication how that term is only being used as a political weapon.jarnon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:58 pmThe distinction is more than semantic. The little-known section 3 of the 14th amendment says:flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 3:33 pmAnother concoction of the left-wing media and Nancy. There was a riot, which should never have happened. But it was labeled an 'insurrection' as a political maneuver.So any current or former government official who’s convicted of insurrection is barred from any future government office. No such ban on participants in a riot.No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Some political zealots on the left are making a feeble attempt at using that section as a weapon against Margaret Taylor Greene.