#Politics Decided to revisit the 14th Amendment in totality, not just Section 3. You find some interesting things ...
* Section 1 says that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Could this be an end-run around the argument excluding #Trump from the ballot is a State issue? As a citizen of the U.S., I should enjoy equal protection from an insurrectionist on the ballot? Rhetorical question ... (1/x)
* Section 2 talks about the formula for allocating House seats to each state, "excluding Indians not taxed." π³ The formula applies only to counting "the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." π³ π³ It also denies the right to vote for federal offices "for participation in rebellion." Could that disqualify #Trump and the #J6 insurrectionists from voting? Rhetorical question ... (2/x)
* My main curiosity about Section 3 was the use of "shall." "Shall" in legalese generally means a mandatory obligation or duty.
If I were arguing before #SCOTUS to bar #Trump from the ballot, I'd consider arguing that SCOTUS had mandatory obligation or duty. It's not optional, for a State or for SCOTUS. If you as a judge believe Trump participated in insurrection, then you must bar him from the ballot -- and under Section 1, bar him in all States.
But I'm not an expert ... (3/x)
My decidedly uneducated opinion on Section 5 is
a. They have abdicated their power the past 150ish years,
b. Under sec 3 they can remove this disability by vote of 2/3rds of each house.