The constitution says that you can't hold office if you've engaged in insurrection....that has nothing to do with being convicted of a crime.

The people it was written for (confederates) weren't necessarily convicted of any crimes either.

Let me flip the question on you...why on earth should someone that encouraged an insurrection on the capital be allowed anywhere near a ballot?

Fair...but I do think the point that engaging in insurrection doesn't mean you have to have committed a specific crime is still accurate.

The point of the amendment as I understand it is to keep those who betray their oaths to our democracy on an egregious level from being put in a position where they can do so again.

I can respect disagreement about whether Trump's conduct actually reached the level of insurrection...but it seems pretty straightforward to agree that if any President encouraged violent insurrection against our democratic processes...they shouldn't be allowed to be president again.