Requiring a conviction in the first place is the special treatment I'm referring to.
Disqualification is not a criminal penalty. If it were then it could be removed by a presidential pardon.
Instead it can only be removed by Congress--a body that is specifically prohibited from passing laws that set or alter someone's criminal liability.
Why should he be treated any differently than anyone else that was disqualified under the 14th amendment?
It's an extraordinary example of Hodgkin's Law of parallel planetary development that the Ferengi symbol for "bars of gold pressed latinum" is also the ancient Earth dollar sign.
"Simpsons already did it!"
I was framed for assassinating a politician and sent to Rura Penthe. Gowron got me $5,000!
That's equivalent to 24,000 hours at the federal minimum wage.
There are only 8,760 hours in a year.
Is it the one where Sideshow Bob runs for mayor?
If it improves the President's approval rating, doesn't that suggest that it's something Americans need or want?
"[...] I'm not going to do it. Why would I?"
Indeed. Why help the American people, Congressman?
Is it antidemocratic to disqualify Trump from office and deny him a place on the ballot?
Third parties are often denied ballot access. Is that antidemocratic?
What a stupid idea.
(Apply liberally to both sides of debate.)
If your business can't survive without paying slave wages then your business shouldn't survive.
Congress can only remove the disqualification, they can't impose it.
It's a problem that the amendment doesn't tell us how it's supposed to work, but the fact that other disqualifying factors (age, residency, etc.) are determined by the states suggests that the states can determine disqualification on the insurrection factor too, and through the same procedural mechanisms.