Topic 8--The U.S. Constitution and Insurrection
GOVERNMENT 101 CASE STUDY
Case Title: The January 6th Insurrection: Constitutional Crisis or Political Protest?
An overview of the January 6th congressional report and it's legal implications for participants including former President Donald Trump.
Note: Everything included in this topic is based upon the January 6th committee report and constitutional issues related to insurrection.
Essential Question: Does Trump's involvement in the insurrection of January 6th deserve an indictment?
Overview
On July 1, 2021, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed seven Democrats and two Republicans to investigate the attack on the Capital according to the House Resolution 503 mandate, their instruction, to “investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack Upon the Unites States Capital Complex.” The investigation culminated in a report summarized in 100 pages explaining their findings on the attempt to overturn the lawful election of President Joe Biden. The full congressional report asserts that the “central cause” of the January 6th Insurrection “was one man, former President Donald Trump.” Their conclusion emerges from sixty or more failed legal challenges and witness statements numbering in the seventies. The Committee claims that Trump is responsible for “inciting, assisting, or aiding and comforting an insurrection,” referring him to the Justice Department for further investigation of this and other crimes. Generally speaking, in a Constitutional Democracy like that of the United States, and insurrection occurs when inciting or participating in an attack against the institutions, practices, leaders in an attempt to overthrow the Constitution. Central to the United States governmental process and procedures is the rule of law as determined by the Constitution. Rebellion against the government and Constitutional law is illegal. According to 18 U.S. Code 2383, “[w]hoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the law there, or gives aid or comfort thereto.” Those found guilty of inciting an insurrection are subject to fines and up to ten years in prison, and cannot run for or hold any public office in the United States. While protest and dissent are protected under the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights, attempt to forcibly act against the government through sedition, conspiracy or insurrection deprives others of their constitutional right to participate in change through responsible democratic methods, underscoring the rule of law. Maintaining freedom requires following and preserving the Constitution and the peaceful methods provided for effecting change. Overthrowing he United States Government through insurrection when disagreements occur is not one of the remedies provided by the Constitution and undermines the “of, by and for the people” mandate. Attempting an insurrection demonstrates disdain for the rule of law provided by the United States Constitution and is antithetical to our way of life. Under the Constitution, dissent and violent rhetoric becomes tolerable. However, the threats and eventual breach of the Capital on January 6th causing mayhem and death rise to the level of an assault on the U.S Democracy in the form of an 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. Therefore, in the final report, the committee recommends that the Justice Department investigate Trump for inciting, assisting, or aiding and comforting an insurrection citing the following:
I. ”Based on false allegations that the election was stolen, Donald Trump summoned tens of thousands of supporters to Washington for Jan. 6. Although these supporters were angry and some were armed, Donald Trump instructed them to march to the Capitol on Jan. 6 to “take back” their country.” On December 19, 2020 Trump promoted a “wild” protest calling for far-right extremists and supporters to join the protest and on January 6th encouraged participants to “fight like hell” and sent them to the Capital.
II. “Knowing that a violent attack on the Capitol was underway and knowing that his words would incite further violence, Donald Trump purposely sent a social media message publicly condemning Vice President Pence at 2:24 p.m. on Jan. 6.” According to the Committee, Trump’s condemnation of Mike Pence further encouraged rioters to break into the capital and search for Pence, some chanting “Hang Mike Pence.”
III. Knowing that violence was underway at the Capitol, and despite his duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, Donald Trump refused repeated requests over a multiple-hour period that he instruct his violent supporters to disperse and leave the Capitol, and instead watched the violent attack unfold on television. This failure to act perpetuated the violence at the Capitol and obstructed Congress’s proceeding to count electoral votes. According to the committee, Trump failed to fulfill his Constitutional duty to uphold the law by ignoring calls for help to stop the crowd and allow the riot to continue for nearly three hours without intervening.
While it is uncertain that the Justice Department will find that Trump is legally at fault and indict him, pursuing the facts is essential to shore up the rule of law on which the United States is founded. Exposing the areas of failure and creating viable solutions may prevent another insurrection attempt. Understanding the legal ramifications of Donald Trump’s involvement provides a framework for creating more protections of the rule of law. Author and Project Manager Amanda Hiley affirms the commitment to the United States Constitutional Government by elected officials in the following Quote:
“I have found a new, authentic place of unity with people like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney and people like them. For all the policy differences I have with them, I know firmly, deeply now and without a doubt they and I – are a WE. WE share a deep conviction about defending the United States Constitution. WE are on the same side, building the barricades and holding the line against violent insurrectionists and white supremacist takeover of our government…..The “Big Lie” is the next incarnation in the centuries-old effort to deny people of color access to democracy. Slavery and the Three-fifths Compromise were the first tools. Then Jim Crow, lynching, intimidation, murder and incarceration designed specifically to capture people of color and permanently delete their right to vote. The “Big Lie” is what white supremacy looks like in 2020. Persistent and unfounded claims, raised with no evidence, that there was “massive voter fraud in urban areas.” Read that clearly for what it says: Black people came out to vote. We don’t like it. Let’s just not count it.”
Amanda Hiley https://goodfaithmedia.org/the-insurrection-the-big-lie-and-the-constitution-part-one
Essential Question
Does former President Donald Trump’s involvement in the January 6th Capitol insurrection warrant indictment under the U.S. Constitution and federal law?
Overview
On January 6, 2021, a violent mob stormed the United States Capitol with the intent to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. This event led to a congressional investigation mandated by House Resolution 503. The resulting report concluded that the "central cause" of the insurrection was one man—former President Donald Trump.
According to the committee's findings, Trump incited and encouraged the attack through repeated false claims of election fraud and inflammatory rhetoric. This event raised significant constitutional questions about the limits of free speech, the rule of law, and accountability in a democratic system.
Constitutional Context
The U.S. Constitution upholds protest and dissent through the First Amendment. However, insurrection, rebellion, and sedition are not protected acts. Article II of the Constitution vests the President with the duty to "faithfully execute the laws." According to 18 U.S. Code § 2383, any person who “incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States” can face up to ten years in prison and disqualification from holding public office.
Key Allegations from the January 6th Committee ReportI. Incitement to Protest and Violence
Trump promoted a protest on social media, calling for a “wild” rally and urged supporters to “take back” the country. On January 6, he told a crowd—some armed—to “fight like hell” and march to the Capitol.
II. Public Condemnation of Vice President Pence
At 2:24 p.m. during the violence, Trump tweeted a statement condemning Mike Pence for not overturning the election results. Rioters responded by searching for Pence and chanting threats, including “Hang Mike Pence.”
III. Failure to Act During the Attack
Despite knowing the violence was escalating, Trump refused to issue any statement to disperse the rioters for hours, watching the events unfold on television. The committee claims this inaction was a dereliction of his constitutional duty.
Legal ImplicationsThe Committee recommended Trump be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation, asserting that his actions meet the threshold for aiding and abetting an insurrection. Whether or not he is indicted, the case brings to light the limits and responsibilities of leadership under a constitutional republic.
Public Response and Broader ImplicationsCivic leader Amanda Hiley underscores the insurrection as an extension of white supremacist efforts to suppress the votes of communities of color. She links the “Big Lie” of election fraud to historical attempts—such as slavery, Jim Crow, and voter suppression—to undermine democratic participation by Black Americans.
“The ‘Big Lie’ is what white supremacy looks like in 2020... Read that clearly for what it says: Black people came out to vote. We don’t like it. Let’s just not count it.”
— Amanda Hiley, source
Classroom Activities
Discussion Questions
Assessment Criteria
Overview
On July 1, 2021, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed seven Democrats and two Republicans to investigate the attack on the Capital according to the House Resolution 503 mandate, their instruction, to “investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack Upon the Unites States Capital Complex.” The investigation culminated in a report summarized in 100 pages explaining their findings on the attempt to overturn the lawful election of President Joe Biden. The full congressional report asserts that the “central cause” of the January 6th Insurrection “was one man, former President Donald Trump.” Their conclusion emerges from sixty or more failed legal challenges and witness statements numbering in the seventies. The Committee claims that Trump is responsible for “inciting, assisting, or aiding and comforting an insurrection,” referring him to the Justice Department for further investigation of this and other crimes. Generally speaking, in a Constitutional Democracy like that of the United States, and insurrection occurs when inciting or participating in an attack against the institutions, practices, leaders in an attempt to overthrow the Constitution. Central to the United States governmental process and procedures is the rule of law as determined by the Constitution. Rebellion against the government and Constitutional law is illegal. According to 18 U.S. Code 2383, “[w]hoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the law there, or gives aid or comfort thereto.” Those found guilty of inciting an insurrection are subject to fines and up to ten years in prison, and cannot run for or hold any public office in the United States. While protest and dissent are protected under the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights, attempt to forcibly act against the government through sedition, conspiracy or insurrection deprives others of their constitutional right to participate in change through responsible democratic methods, underscoring the rule of law. Maintaining freedom requires following and preserving the Constitution and the peaceful methods provided for effecting change. Overthrowing he United States Government through insurrection when disagreements occur is not one of the remedies provided by the Constitution and undermines the “of, by and for the people” mandate. Attempting an insurrection demonstrates disdain for the rule of law provided by the United States Constitution and is antithetical to our way of life. Under the Constitution, dissent and violent rhetoric becomes tolerable. However, the threats and eventual breach of the Capital on January 6th causing mayhem and death rise to the level of an assault on the U.S Democracy in the form of an 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. Therefore, in the final report, the committee recommends that the Justice Department investigate Trump for inciting, assisting, or aiding and comforting an insurrection citing the following:
I. ”Based on false allegations that the election was stolen, Donald Trump summoned tens of thousands of supporters to Washington for Jan. 6. Although these supporters were angry and some were armed, Donald Trump instructed them to march to the Capitol on Jan. 6 to “take back” their country.” On December 19, 2020 Trump promoted a “wild” protest calling for far-right extremists and supporters to join the protest and on January 6th encouraged participants to “fight like hell” and sent them to the Capital.
II. “Knowing that a violent attack on the Capitol was underway and knowing that his words would incite further violence, Donald Trump purposely sent a social media message publicly condemning Vice President Pence at 2:24 p.m. on Jan. 6.” According to the Committee, Trump’s condemnation of Mike Pence further encouraged rioters to break into the capital and search for Pence, some chanting “Hang Mike Pence.”
III. Knowing that violence was underway at the Capitol, and despite his duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, Donald Trump refused repeated requests over a multiple-hour period that he instruct his violent supporters to disperse and leave the Capitol, and instead watched the violent attack unfold on television. This failure to act perpetuated the violence at the Capitol and obstructed Congress’s proceeding to count electoral votes. According to the committee, Trump failed to fulfill his Constitutional duty to uphold the law by ignoring calls for help to stop the crowd and allow the riot to continue for nearly three hours without intervening.
While it is uncertain that the Justice Department will find that Trump is legally at fault and indict him, pursuing the facts is essential to shore up the rule of law on which the United States is founded. Exposing the areas of failure and creating viable solutions may prevent another insurrection attempt. Understanding the legal ramifications of Donald Trump’s involvement provides a framework for creating more protections of the rule of law. Author and Project Manager Amanda Hiley affirms the commitment to the United States Constitutional Government by elected officials in the following Quote:
“I have found a new, authentic place of unity with people like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney and people like them. For all the policy differences I have with them, I know firmly, deeply now and without a doubt they and I – are a WE. WE share a deep conviction about defending the United States Constitution. WE are on the same side, building the barricades and holding the line against violent insurrectionists and white supremacist takeover of our government…..The “Big Lie” is the next incarnation in the centuries-old effort to deny people of color access to democracy. Slavery and the Three-fifths Compromise were the first tools. Then Jim Crow, lynching, intimidation, murder and incarceration designed specifically to capture people of color and permanently delete their right to vote. The “Big Lie” is what white supremacy looks like in 2020. Persistent and unfounded claims, raised with no evidence, that there was “massive voter fraud in urban areas.” Read that clearly for what it says: Black people came out to vote. We don’t like it. Let’s just not count it.”
Amanda Hiley https://goodfaithmedia.org/the-insurrection-the-big-lie-and-the-constitution-part-one
Essential Question
Does former President Donald Trump’s involvement in the January 6th Capitol insurrection warrant indictment under the U.S. Constitution and federal law?
Overview
On January 6, 2021, a violent mob stormed the United States Capitol with the intent to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. This event led to a congressional investigation mandated by House Resolution 503. The resulting report concluded that the "central cause" of the insurrection was one man—former President Donald Trump.
According to the committee's findings, Trump incited and encouraged the attack through repeated false claims of election fraud and inflammatory rhetoric. This event raised significant constitutional questions about the limits of free speech, the rule of law, and accountability in a democratic system.
Constitutional Context
The U.S. Constitution upholds protest and dissent through the First Amendment. However, insurrection, rebellion, and sedition are not protected acts. Article II of the Constitution vests the President with the duty to "faithfully execute the laws." According to 18 U.S. Code § 2383, any person who “incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States” can face up to ten years in prison and disqualification from holding public office.
Key Allegations from the January 6th Committee ReportI. Incitement to Protest and Violence
Trump promoted a protest on social media, calling for a “wild” rally and urged supporters to “take back” the country. On January 6, he told a crowd—some armed—to “fight like hell” and march to the Capitol.
II. Public Condemnation of Vice President Pence
At 2:24 p.m. during the violence, Trump tweeted a statement condemning Mike Pence for not overturning the election results. Rioters responded by searching for Pence and chanting threats, including “Hang Mike Pence.”
III. Failure to Act During the Attack
Despite knowing the violence was escalating, Trump refused to issue any statement to disperse the rioters for hours, watching the events unfold on television. The committee claims this inaction was a dereliction of his constitutional duty.
Legal ImplicationsThe Committee recommended Trump be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation, asserting that his actions meet the threshold for aiding and abetting an insurrection. Whether or not he is indicted, the case brings to light the limits and responsibilities of leadership under a constitutional republic.
Public Response and Broader ImplicationsCivic leader Amanda Hiley underscores the insurrection as an extension of white supremacist efforts to suppress the votes of communities of color. She links the “Big Lie” of election fraud to historical attempts—such as slavery, Jim Crow, and voter suppression—to undermine democratic participation by Black Americans.
“The ‘Big Lie’ is what white supremacy looks like in 2020... Read that clearly for what it says: Black people came out to vote. We don’t like it. Let’s just not count it.”
— Amanda Hiley, source
Classroom Activities
- Constitutional Law Analysis
- Students review 18 U.S. Code § 2383 and the First Amendment.
- Class debate: Where is the line between free speech and incitement?
- Mock Trial
- Students simulate a legal hearing to determine whether Trump’s actions meet the legal criteria for indictment under insurrection laws.
- Civic Writing Assignment
- Prompt: In a democratic society, what responsibilities do leaders have during times of crisis? Write an op-ed discussing accountability and the rule of law.
- Comparative Case Study
- Students research other historical instances of political unrest (e.g., the Whiskey Rebellion, Civil War, 1968 DNC protests) and compare their legal and constitutional outcomes to January 6.
Discussion Questions
- What constitutional powers and limits are at play in this case?
- Should a former president be held criminally responsible for actions taken while in office?
- How does the rule of law maintain democratic institutions?
- What role do race and historical suppression play in this case, as argued by Amanda Hiley?
Assessment Criteria
- Ability to interpret constitutional law and legal statutes.
- Critical thinking in evaluating political accountability.
- Civic literacy demonstrated through writing and discussion.
- Engagement with historical and social context of democratic processes.