Good work!

An important point that the media seem to miss is that Section 3 is not directed at individuals; it is directed at the electorate. The section tells the people whom they may not elect or appoint to governmental positions for fear that such appointees will sabotage the Federal system, as proven by the fact that such persons have previously sworn to uphold the Constitution and have then rebelled against it.

Because the section doesn't do anything to a potential candidate, the candidate is not, as an individual, entitled to "due process" of law. The electorate, OTOH, is entitled to such process, but I have no problem with a state determining that its voters have had due process if the issue has been litigated with both sides of the argument being represented. I do understand the argument that the particular procedures followed in Colorado may not have given the pro-Trump voters of Colorado all of the procedural thingies they can pretend they would have used, but I think SCOTUS should use a "shocks the conscience" test to determine whether the Colorado courts are correct that Trump participated in an insurrection. Everything else is a matter of law as to which due process was clearly provided. (Oddly, the best claim by voters that "their" candidate has been wrongly disqualified may arise under the "equal protection" clause of the same amendment.)

The argument that only Congress can prescribe an enforcement mechanism seems silly. The confederate rebels knew they were disqualified from office without being convicted of anything. (Many requested amnesty without having been convicted.) Congress did make insurrection a crime with disqualification one of the consequences of a guilty verdict, but it seems passing strange to say that the law, which, unlike Section 3, does not require a prior oath-taking, is the only route to disqualification. The idea that a political appointee (the Attorney General) should have the power to determine through enforcement action who can run for office is just plain nuts.