Why does the US have a problem with insurrectionism?

This is something I have been pondering for a while since the US Constitution and its history make it clear that it does not condone rebellion.  Indeed the document is intended on establishing the rule of law, which runs contrary to the insurrectionist doctrine.

Recap: Shays' Rebellion was the event which led to the attempt to rework the Articles of Confederation.  Instead the Constitution came out of that movement with its specific intent of "insuring domestic tranquility".  The militia is supposed to "to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions":  Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance of the US Constitution.

The Constitution only mentions one crime: Treason. This is found in Article III, Section 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. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Levying war is defined as:

The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution. 4 Cranch R. 473-4; Const. art. 3, s. 3. Vide Treason; Fries' Trial; Pamphl. This is a technical term, borrowed from the English law, and its meaning is the same as it is when used in stat. 25 Ed. III.; 4 Cranch's R. 471; U. S. v. Fries, Pamphl. 167; Hall's Am. Law Jo. 351; Burr's Trial; 1 East, P. C. 62 to 77; Alis. Cr. Law of Scotl. 606; 9 C. & P. 129.

The Constitution does not itself create the offence; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offence, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress: 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason. Congress has passed laws creating other related offences that punish conduct that undermines the government or the national security (See 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115).

In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavour.
it should also be noted that the Declaration of Independence is a historic document with no legal authority under the US Constitution (Article VI).

Which take us back to the quote from Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951):

“The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.”

I would hold that the Bundy family and anyone else who would attempt to recruit for the purpose of starting a civil war has engaged in the act of Treason in accordance with this definition.  18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTS has  variety of options if you are not willing to call incitements to rebellion treason.

Additionally Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment states:

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.

Very few people are willing to do anything about the promotion of the belief that people are somehow being patriotic and somehow following the constitution when the insurrectionists act in their seditious manner to the point of actual rebellion. There have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions since the Constitution was ratified. Several men were convicted of treason in connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were pardoned by President George Washington.

Which is where the US differs from other countries with a Common Law heritage.  Yes, there have been rebellions in England, Canada, and Australia, yet they do not have the belief that there is somehow a "right" to rebellion (as they do not have a concept of a "right to arms/guns").  Unlike the US, where the largest rebellion, the Civil War/War Between the States, went without too many of the instigators being hanged, rebellion has been punished severely in other nations with a British heritage.  Only recently has the death penalty been abolished for treason in most Common law countries.

What I find even more bizarre are the people who somehow claim to be "conservative" while spouting seditious nonsense. Especially since the term "conservative" is defined as:

a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity.

By that definition, insurrectionism and supporting sedition are hardly conservative qualities, but this gets into the bizarre notion of what is "conservative" in the United States.  If anything, true conservatism believes in the rule of law: not the rule of the gun.

The problem is that like the Second Amendment revisionism, there has been a neglect of the concept of the rule of law in US society. The rule of law is that a nation is ruled by laws rather than the capricious whims of individuals.  It is part of the Constitutional Structure under Article VI.

The rule of law is expressed in these four principles:

1. The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
2. The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.
3. The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
4. Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

This is also summed up in Article VI of The Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:

The law is the expression of the general will. All the citizens have the right of contributing personally or through their representatives to its formation. It must be the same for all, either that it protects, or that it punishes.

The bottom line is that the US has moved from the concept of the rule of law and somehow allowed the absurdity that individuals can decide which laws they can follow.  But the reality is as I pointed out in my post Sic semper proditores (Thus always to traitors):

 Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it is unconstitutional.

A Little Light Friday Content

But this mostly-below-the-radar caught my attention, as being Friday-worthy.  It is certainly unprofessional for people who should have their metaphorical fingers on the hot buttons of missles to focus their attention on something else hot fingering.  But isn't that true of more than just porn? 
I am not a prude; heck, I wrote a post here with the title in praise of porn and freedom that involved quoting the Marquis de Sade's political philosophy quotes.  Most people know de Sade only for his sexual exploits and writing, and are not aware of his heroism or his support for democracy in france, including as an elected delagate to their National Convention during the Revolution.
Aren't there plenty of OTHER sites that are sources of malware -- or do I run security scans for the heck of it, since I'm not spending my time on porn sites?  Are we less victims of those?  The worst malware I've had to contend with came from a translation / dictionary site - related to Babylon.  If you follow this line of reasoning, we're victims of dictionary sites too.  But THAT doesn't plug into the right wing anti-porn position, like that of Mitts on R-money who wants to make all computers after he's elected incapable of accessing porn sites.  I personally have no problem with computers on our missile control networks being disabled from porn access - but the right wants to control what EVERYONE can - or can't - access.  Yeah - so much for the freedom lovers, NOT.

right wing porn?

I think it is a stretch to claim that having to run cyber security for malware makes us porn victims - we have overt cyber attacks frequently, not just a risk from dormant code waiting to strike the unsuspecting lusty government employee or contractor. 
It is EVERY source of malware that attempts to harm us, not porn itself.  Conservatives, and especially the religious right HATE sex.
This is a bit of a stretch, to claim our national security is a porn victim because of potential cyber attack.  It can be as true of a badly secured on-line shopping sites; but claiming business makes us victims wouldn't conform to the God Loves Capitalism mantra of religious fundy nuts like Fischer.
Before you are too persuaded, remember this guy was also claiming that Butterball turkeys were not only Halal, but were part of a secret plot to Islamicize us all by tricking us into eating Muslim poultry.  Apparently, Fischer believes you become Muslim like you contract Salmonella, from eating bad poultry.  (The Butterball turkeys aren't Halal of course, until IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES THAT IMPORT THEM, the are further processed through a religious ceremony, formal/official marking, etc.).
So take EVERYTHING Fischer says with a highway department dump truck load of salt; he's part of that right wing media that consistently fear mongers with factually inaccurate bullshit.  WHY conservatives just love love love to be lied to still eludes me; but it seems to make them happy.
Certainly their logic-challenged factually-defective propaganda entertains the rest of us who live in fact-based, verifiable, objective reality.
From Right Wing Watch : Fischer Discovers Proof that Pornography is not a Victimless Crime
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Fri, 08/03/2012 - 10:28am

Recently the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency issued a warning to employees and contractors not to use their computers to visit pornographic websites because it was not only unprofessional and a violation of government regulations, but such websites often contain viruses and malware that could compromise the missile defense network.
And for Bryan Fischer, that was proof that pornography is not a victimless crime because "you and I could get incinerated, burned to a crisp, toasted because some guy is looking at porn instead of taking care of our missile defense system; [so] do not tell me it is a victimless crime":