But isn't that a criminal law with some criminal penalty?
Removing from a ballot does not require a criminal act or conviction beforehand as there is no civil or criminal penalty by a removal due to lack of qualification, no?
Were the removed parties in the 1870s time period insurrectionist tried and convicted before removal?
Don't states have different rules today on who can be on ballot to run for presidency? Weren't there some minor candidates removed recently for not meeting state requirements?
Yes, it's a criminal law with harsh penalties (up to 10 years in prison) and a flat out ban on holding office if convicted.
>>>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.<<<
www.law.cornell.edu
As of right now this is the only law on the books that relates directly to the 14th Amendment.
As I read the Supreme Court decision, it seems to say that congress could pass a law banning oathbreaking insurrectionists from office without a criminal convection. This would be consistent with the other non-criminal qualifications (e.g. age) to hold office. The opinion is a little unclear though.
This article discusses the early history of the 14th Amendment:
Lawmakers drafted Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as a means to block former Confederate officers who were elected to office.
www.history.com
Assuming the history.com article is correct, it was intended to prevent people from taking office without a criminal conviction:
>>>Johnson and congressional Democrats vehemently objected to the Senate’s language in Section 3, which they claimed violated the
6th Amendment guarantee to a fair trial. The disqualification clause appeared to punish former Confederates for their past actions without a trial or a conviction of treason.
Radical Republicans in Congress dismissed those objections, arguing that Section 3 wasn’t a punishment, but rather a new qualification for holding office. Under Section 3, to qualify for any political office in the United States (federal or state), you couldn’t have engaged in an insurrection.
“The argument was that Section 3 was no different than saying somebody had to be a certain age or be a citizen to hold office,” says Magliocca. “Everybody under 35 is not being ‘punished’ because they can’t be president. It’s a qualification for office, not a punishment.”
By framing Section 3 this way, Radical Republicans made it possible for officials to be disqualified by military and civil procedures instead of through drawn-out criminal trials.
“Congress understood that they probably weren't going to get many criminal convictions for treason, particularly if they held the treason trial in the South,” says Graber, “so
this was a way to assure that people won’t hold office even without convicting them of treason.”<<<
After the Supreme Court decision, the 14th Amendment only allows states to ban people from taking state office. The state laws that purported to ban candidates from office are null and unenforceable as applied to candidates for federal office.
