You make a great point with the border comparison. A few things to consider.
The state can’t convict for insurrection as it’s a federal law.
Trump was impeached for his part in the insurrection. The Senate acquitted him with the excuse that this issue was something for the courts to decide after Trumps presidency.
Lastly, the constitution does not state that a criminal conviction of insurrection is the necessary criteria, only that “engagement in”
Now ind agree with you that is dangerously vague and something that should be better defined through legislation and not just left up to the courts. As it stands it does appear that CO is not making an unreasonable argument.
I do think and hope this situation will lead to legislation that defines the parameters
The state can’t convict for insurrection as it’s a federal law.
But Colorado kind of did this. By them ruling him ineligible to be on the ballot, they essentially have convicted him of insurrection, without even a charge or a trial.
Lastly, the constitution does not state that a criminal conviction of insurrection is the necessary criteria, only that “engagement in”
But it does say that Congress (the federal Congress) enforces the provisions of the amendment through legislation. They did this by passing 2383. So, the legal statute is there, but you don’t have to be charged with it? So if a court just feels you committed insurrection, then you are guilty of it? Without being charged and tried?
Also, Colorado state Supreme Court is using the 14th amendment to disqual him, but the 14th amendment is a federal issue, and it charges the federal congress to enforce it. Do state courts even have legal jurisdiction?