It came to mind that the idea of the 14th Amendment requiring a criminal conviction of insurrection in order to disqualify someone doesn’t make sense in that the 14th Amendment specifically states that “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
But if it’s in response to a criminal conviction, that would make it a pardon.
And only the President can pardon:
“Congress cannot grant a pardon. That is an act of grace which can only be performed by the President.” Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 638 (1896)
Thus, disqualification from the 14th Amendment cannot require a criminal conviction. That doesn’t mean insurrection isn’t a crime. It simply means that one does not need to be criminally convicted in order to be recognized as having, indeed, “engaged in insurrection” and thus disqualified from serving in government under the 14th Amendment. A person can be convicted of insurrection, serve their sentence, and then have Congress say that they can run for office, all without any amelioration of the crime for which they were convicted.
If one insists upon the criminal conviction, then that means the Executive branch has the ability to do away with it and restore the ability to run for office and that is directly contradicted by the 14th Amendment. Only Congress can clear the way.
I’m all for due process in determining if someone engaged in insurrection, and thus the courts do have something to say in the matter, but it is clear to me that one doesn’t need to be convicted of the crime in order to be disqualified.