Trump wins Supreme Court ballot case – and calls for presidential immunity
msn.com
msn.com
A subsequent re-reading of the legalese earned an "Oooooooohhh, that's why." from me: "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."[1]
Logic can certainly argue that if Congress can decide when the 14th doesn't apply, they certainly can (and should) decide when it does apply. Otherwise, we could have an awkward situation where the Judiciary might find someone guilty but the Legislative could overturn it, a clear breach of separation of powers.
A very memorable lesson on how words matter and we should choose our words carefully.
[1]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/sectio...
Having a clause where Congress can vote overwhelmingly to negate something suggests to me the person who wrote that though that someone outside of Congress got the first take.
To properly understand Section 3 of the 14th Amendment you first need to understand the historical context it was written under: The Civil War.
Section 3's purpose is to bar present and former enemies of the United States who broke their oath to protect and uphold the Constitution from holding any political office. In other words, its purpose is to bar former Confederate politicians and soldiers who broke away from and acted against the Union from holding political office.
Congress subsequently pardoned all former Confederates, and Section 5 also makes it clear it is Congress who enforces the 14th Amendment via legislations. I actually wasn't entirely aware of Section 5 until I re-re-read the whole Amendment again as I was writing this comment (thanks for giving me a reason!), so SCOTUS's reasoning becomes even simpler.
TL;DR, SCOTUS from what I can tell clarified two things:
1. Federal matters such as Federal political offices are the sole jurisdiction of the Federal government, not State governments.
2. Congress's sole authority to enforce the 14th as they and only they see fit.