Relevant text from 14th 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.
And later Congress did removed the disability with the Amnesty Act of 1872:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.
Sorry, in one place I mistyped 1972. It should be 1872.
Wow. I did not know about the Amnesty Act. Of course the press, which besides being biased, is also lazy and stupid, has mentioned it. I wonder why this hasn’t been held positive on the issue?
Well, well, well. That seems to be a glaring flaw in the system. Lawyer A cites a statute and if no one has the wherewithal or inclination to research all the derivatives or precedent setting rulings made citing it, then the judge/jury are whistling in the dark. Isn’t the judge under obligation to delve into the issue?