Dear BlueAnon: The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Trump

At least not yet. Let's look at that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 3. 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.

Now, while it doesn't explicitly stipulate that a conviction by trial or guilty plea is necessitated, and while Reconstruction Radicals didn't consider it that way at the time, I have little doubt that any state or federal court today (and any state court ruling otherwise would be appealed to the federal level, or will be) would say that petitions and suits to remove Trump — or even state legislative actions to do so — are not "ripe" because of the lack of a legal verdict against him.

I don't care what Michael Luttig or Second Amendment flip-flopper Larry Tribe say, per PolitiFact. Nor do I care what the current generation of Kermit Roosevelt says:

Kermit Roosevelt, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, said, "There’s nothing in the text of the Constitution to make me think that this requirement for office-holding is any different from the others imposed by the Constitution, such as being 35 (years old) and being a natural-born citizen. Those obviously don’t require a conviction. So I think the argument is strong that court proceedings aren’t necessary for someone to implement the disqualification."

Besides federal courts in general likely differing, two SCOTUS Justices certainly will — Thomas and Alito, of course — probably Kavanaugh, possibly??? Gorsuch and maybe??? Barrett. If both the question marks agree, it doesn't matter what the Blind Ump thinks.

Madison Cawthorn? The appeals court was wrong.

Couy Griffin, Otero County, New Mexico, commissioner? Proves my point; charged and convicted first.

So, if Trump is on the ballot next year? Blame Jack Smith for not charging him with seditious conspiracy, or the federal version of "aiding and abetting." 

Oh, all of the above apply to renegade Republican celebrity candidate (best label I can think of for him) John Anthony Castro as well, and I'm still unsure exactly what string he's running. But, former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmini agrees with me.

Otherwise, this is basically like BlueAnon types (and some Never Trumpers) talking up the 25th Amendment without reason while Trump was president. (Greg AtLast also knew this.) They are again looking for a constitutional solution to a (currently) political question. And, since Jack Smith didn't indict him on anything close to sedition, I expect it will remain currently political through next November's election day.