Is it the case the states can determine a person ineligible for being too young, not native born and not a citizen without legally verifying the facts of those things? If so, we are right back to the question of how the state can simply assert the person is an insurrectionist without verifying it, simply on their own say-so. Do they just get to make it up as they go along?
yes, it is the case that a state can determine, through evidence and a deliberative process, that a person is not of age, a citizen, etc. And in this case, a state can determine, through evidence, that a person engaged in insurrection. The amendment does not require a conviction for insurrection in words nor did its application in the post civil war era require a conviction. It's not 'making it up'. This is simply reading the words and taking the required action. And the states did legally verify the facts.
Is it the case the states can determine a person ineligible for being too young, not native born and not a citizen without legally verifying the facts of those things? If so, we are right back to the question of how the state can simply assert the person is an insurrectionist without verifying it, simply on their own say-so. Do they just get to make it up as they go along?
yes, it is the case that a state can determine, through evidence and a deliberative process, that a person is not of age, a citizen, etc. And in this case, a state can determine, through evidence, that a person engaged in insurrection. The amendment does not require a conviction for insurrection in words nor did its application in the post civil war era require a conviction. It's not 'making it up'. This is simply reading the words and taking the required action. And the states did legally verify the facts.