AFAICT, the Constitution doesn’t define ‘person’ or ‘law’ or ‘the’. Words have definitions.
You are free to move your investments around in a 401k. You only get the penalties when you withdraw the money. If the money (as opposed to stocks) remains the the 401k, you’re not withdrawing it.
Pretty sure that the drafters, about 100 years removed from the English Civil War, would have no problem labeling an action such as, say, Cromwell (or a wanna-be) gathering a hoarde of peasants and exhorting them to attack Parliament while he watched gleefully on, as an ‘insurrection’.
Aha! Sorry for the hijack. I thought you were pondering doing what an uncle of mine did, which was dump his 401k into cash under the bed. Didn’t go so well for him.
But, while they must’ve known they were talking about that civil war, they also must’ve known — having just seen one — that other civil wars could follow.
They had the option of explicitly limiting this Section to that event, but — for some reason — they didn’t do that.
How do you figure they would’ve replied, if you had asked them at the time, hey, are you just limiting this to the guys who just fought in the last war? Or, if — years from now — some other group actually manages to get their weapons inside the Capitol, would this Section also apply to them? Because it sure seems to me that you could’ve excluded other such groups, but, well, didn’t; why didn’t you? Why shouldn’t I just apply the open-ended text as written?
Yes, I think this is probably correct. So the questions that remain are: does what Trump did count (I think probably yes, but it’s unclear SCOTUS will agree) and who gets to decide (I think SCOTUS will decide that the states do, under their laws and courts, as long as their conclusion is reasonable).
If they do kick it back to the states then they won’t really have to make the ruling on whether what Trump did applies (which I think Roberts in particular would probably like to avoid). But they could still reserve the right to overrule state decisions that are obviously incorrect - like saying Biden is ineligible for not building a wall on the border or whatever.
Do we think it’s reasonable that different states could interpret the facts differently? Is it OK if CO says Trump can’t be on their ballot but other states disagree? Doesn’t that seem to require SCOTUS to make a decision on the underlying fact of Trump’s eligibility?
It would be an interesting question if the Supreme Court allows Colorado’s decision to stand. If Trump is ineligible in Colorado because of Section 3, presumably he’s ineligible period. What then?
IMHO – and IANAL, particularly not a constitutional one – the 14th Amendment was written looking backwards at the Civil War and the authors gave no thought to how it would be applied going forward. Re: the section of 14 regarding “birthright citizenship” – they were overturning Dred Scott and granting citizenship to formerly enslaved persons. if you’d ask them “does this apply to the children of immigrants?” they would’ve shrugged.
‘The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.’
Apparently, this ruling is an “attack on democracy”, at least according to Trump’s team. And they’re of course fundraising off of it, which admittedly I’d do as well. Why not?
Nice quote from that article:
… for the Republican front-runner and his party, insurrections aren’t dangerous; accountability for insurrections is dangerous.
I think that even the most conservative, “states’ rights” justices would recognize how singular this situation is, and what a hot mess we’d have with a candidate disqualified on one state’s ballot but not another’s, all relative to the same Federal law.
It seems implausible to me, if they take the case (and how can they not?) that they don’t make the call for how this works for everyone, no matter how much they wish they didn’t have to.
Can we put opinions here?
This is just awful news IMHO.
I don’t begrudge the judges for following what they believe is the letter of the law. Nonetheless, the effect is to give massive ammunition to the whole victimhood narrative that is almost the entirety of Trump’s platform now.
Lol, like MAGATs need ammunition to feel like victims! 
ETA: and what about the other side, and/or the undecideds? Don’t they need “ammunition” to make the decision that this was an insurrection and that Trump is ineligible because of that?
While I find your ability to read the mind of hundreds of different people from 150 years ago and conclude there was one, and only one, viewpoint for them, we here and now have the words they put in effect. And those words definitively DO NOT say “oh, we just meant the Civil War”.
No surprises here.
They don’t need ammunition but this has helped them a lot.
I browsed a few conservative channels and you can see the elation behind the faux outrage.
Yesterday, they were wrestling with how to 180 flip from saying the country’s economy is in the toilet to “The economy is only doing well thanks to Trump”. Today they are newly energized.
Did we (all) know this last evening?
There are also a few summaries of a few legal scholars’ views on the issues, and their thoughts about what SCOTUS could/should/might do.
As opposed to now, when a different set of traitorous individuals are trying to seek elected office? What’s different now, that makes it no longer relevant?
I don’t think it’s reasonable, but I do think it’s what the Court is going to do.
If its not this, they’ll easily find something else to be “newly energized” about. Hell, they’ve been “newly energized” 87,634 times since Trump decided to run. And, really, why should I give a fuck about what energizes a MAGAite?