Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

What we mean when we use words like sedition and insurrection

Rioters storm the Capitol

Pro-Trump rioters breached Capitol security and stormed the building Wednesday.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

From the moment a pro-Trump rally turned into an anti-democracy riot at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, we have heard the repeated use of terms like sedition and insurrection. But as we know, words matter.

So The Fulcrum asked Doron Kalir, clinical professor of law at Cleveland State University's Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, to help turn legal definitions into language everyone can understand.


Sedition

"In essence, sedition occurs whenever two or more people conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States, or to oppose by force its authority. The criminal prohibition against sedition appears in 18 U.S.C. (U.S. Code) § 2384, and carries a penalty of up to 20-year imprisonment. Interestingly, the law contains specific language against conspiracies to use force in order to 'seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority' of the government."

Insurrection

"An insurrection occurs whenever an organized and armed uprising takes place against the authority of the United States. The criminal prohibition against insurrection can be found in 18 U.S.C § 2383, which states that 'whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States ... or give aid or comfort thereto' shall be subject to up to 10 years in prison. Interestingly, the act adds that that person shall also be "incapable of holding any [Federal] office."

Treason

"Treason is the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the United States, either by making war against it or by materially supporting its enemies. The criminal prohibition against treason can be found in the U.S. Constitution, Art. III § 3 ('Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.'). According to U.S.C. § 2381, treason can be punishable by death, and in any event no less than five years' imprisonment. Again, a person convicted of treason cannot serve in public (federal) office."

25th Amendment

"The 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1967. It was adopted in part due to lessons learned following the Kennedy assassination. The amendment has four parts, the last of which is of interest today. It allows the vice president, together with a majority of the Cabinet members, to author a 'written declaration (attesting) that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.' When such a letter is sent to the House and the Senate, 'the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.' The section continues to explain what happens afterwards, but due to the short time that remains for the current administration, that is likely moot. That section of the 25th Amendment has never been used, and no vice president has ever been declared an 'Acting President.' Again, to trigger this section, a majority of Cabinet members — all of whom are nominated by the sitting president — have to agree to declare him as 'unable to discharge' his duties. That is not likely to happen anytime soon."

Other terms that have been used — like banana republic, coup, and putsch — may be fun to say but have no legal definition.


Read More

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less