Isn't declaring a city as a "sanctuary" for illegal aliens a declaration that federal law will not be enforced? How is that not overthrowing the Constitution in their states?
But seriously...
Regarding actual insurrection, there is also 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection:
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.However, individual citizens would not have the wherewithal to undertake an actual insurrection against the federal government. They would need a much larger organization than a militia group, they would need the organized people of entire states to actually pull off an insurrection.
That's why we have 50 U.S. Code Title 50—WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE, specifically 50 U.S. Code CHAPTER 13—INSURRECTION.
All of the individual sections refer to "state[s] in insurrection," not individual citizens.
This is understandable given that the 14th amendment was in response to the Civil War and the seceding states (states in insurrection), not individuals. Section 3 of the 14th amendment was written with the idea of preventing the office holders of future seceding states from holding offices in the United States.
Therefore, "insurrection" in the 14th amendment was meant to apply to the several states, not to individual citizens. A state must be in open rebellion before the citizens of that state can be held for insurrection under Title 18.
If Congress tried to pass a new law to define insurrection as inciteful speech in front of a large crowd near the Capitol in order to use it as the basis for charging President Trump, it would be an ex post facto law if applied to Trump. A law like that would have to already be on the books to apply to the January 6 speech. A new law would only apply to future speech.
I doubt that 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection, by itself, would be enough to indict an individual on without there being a larger entity like a state involved.
That's my take on it, and I invite Lawrence Tribe to call me an ad hominem because of it.
-PJ
A complete reading of the legislative history and accompanying commentaries preceding passage of the 14th Amendment clearly demonstrates that Section 3 was always directed at individuals, not states. Within that general scope, debate focussed on those who should be encompassed by its provisions, and those who should be excepted from them.
See Congressional Debates of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution for a complete compendium of Congressional consideration of the issue.
???? How was an anti-gun rights bill used to mock the Dobbs ruling? I must be missing something.