The moment 14th Amendment disqualification became a live issue, many prominent commentators began to rewrite both history and the english language in order to pretend Donald Trump’s actions up to and on January 6 don’t qualify as “insurrection.” www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...

“..characterization of Donald Trump’s failed coup as an attempt to ‘secure an unelected second term in office’ belongs in the hall of fame, alongside George W. Bush’s ‘weapons of mass destruction–related program activities’…” difference: this time it’ll bring down a Republic, not just look like it

They will move the goalposts until they get what they want, and they won't stop, they'll just change subjects and run you in circles chasing their horrible arguments.

Not to mention the arguments that the president is not an officer within the meaning of the 14th amendment.

I can almost see an argument, faintly, that it wasn't insurrection. It wasn't organised, blah blah blah. The one that drives me bonkers is the argument that the President is not an Officer of the United States. That's like saying the Pope isn't Catholic.

Progressives need to take up the 14th Amendment the way the right did the 2nd.

Simply saying “You gotta fight like hell or you won’t have a country. “ Defines his intent.

The part I'm trying to figure out is the argument that the person who occupies "the Office of President of the United States" (term from Article II) is not an "officer of the United States" (term from 14th Amendment).

Do you ever get the feeling that some people think "things like a rebellion" are old-timey and can't possibly happen in modern democracies?

You are barred from Federal and State office if you “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” (s3, 14th A). Trump clearly gave aid or comfort to the insurrection, regardless of whether he took part.

Just for clarity, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does allow Congress to remove liability for insurrection.