I think that it is fairly clear that the US Congress (and its members) are a federal entity and not a creature of state law. But, even if that’s not right, it doesn’t solve the statutory interpretation problem: the 14th Amendment disqualification applies to individuals holding office under the United States and “any State.” (As well as Senators, Representatives, and electors).
Of course, Senators and Representatives can’t be covered by the 14th Amendment’s reference to an “Office under the United States” because they are ineligible to hold such office per Article 1, Section 6 (“[N]o Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”). Which is why they need to be named specifically.
The President and Vice President are more interesting. I guess the question is whether an “office under the United States” is the same thing as being an “Officer of the United States.” I do not believe (and have explained previously) that the President is an “Officer of the United States,” as that term is used in the Constitution. But I don’t know whether I think that’s the same thing as holding an office under the United States.
This turned into a much longer and more interesting thread than I had anticipated. Just wanted to say thank you to all who have participated, for the information provided, and for the reasoned exchange of views. It could have easily gone sideways.
The senators at the time (IIRC) were in fact appointed by the state government to be the representatives of the state government, so the interpretation that they might be considered state offices wasnot illogical?
OTOH, as I recall the constitution does not allow for a person to resign but it can happen anyway. (Unable to fulfill duties vs. unwilling?) So there are circumstances not completely covered in detail by the constitution?
The Constitution expressly recognizes that Senators, the President and the Vice President may resign their offices (by listing “resignation” as one of the ways in which those offices may become vacant in describing how a vacancy is to be filled). The language for House members uses the phrase, “when vacancies happen” without expressly listing resignation. Nonetheless, Representative George Partridge was elected to serve in the first US Congress in 1789 and resigned prior to the conclusion of that Congress.
Assuming that provision would include the presidency, I guess I don’t see it as an additional (and therefore unconstitutional) qualification to be president, but as a restriction on the rights of the convicted person. Every criminal law takes away someone’s rights in a way that would otherwise be unconstitutional.
Like, why would these be different?
Every 35 year old natural born citizen, etc., has a constitutional right to become president after election, but some criminal convictions take that away.
Everyone has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but some criminal convictions take that away.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton was a lawsuit by a guy (Ray Thornton) who was going to have his constitutional rights taken away by fiat, with no process at all.
More important, can they limit his access to phone and visitors, and is a prison a SCIF for possessing classified documents? (Maybe store them in boxes on top of the toilet in the cell?)