Correct. The lack of enabling legislation leaves massive due process issues that are being dealt with on an ad hoc basis that simply
Cannot be tolerated lest the presidential electoral system collapse: does the language of the 14th apply to POTUS at
All? is it necessary that the person be convicted of the crime of insurrection?
If not, is it state courts that have jurisdiction to make the determination? Can administrative agencies such as the Maine SOS
Make the determination? What is the standard of proof— the preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt?
If court proceedings are necessary, who has standing to bring the case?
Is there a right to a trial? Is there a right to a jury trial? Etc etc
These are light years from being minor issues, and I just don’t see SCOTUS opening the door to chaos by allowing SCOC to stand
Re: 101 - all good questions!
My own belief is that a criminal conviction is not necessary for someone to be disqualified from holding public office. But as you point out there are so many other questions.
A good but long paper is here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3749407
I agree with you - narrowly crafted ruling so as to get as many Justices on board as possible.