I would have assumed the Amnesty Act removed that specific disability for everyone at that time. In other words, in 1865 somebody might have been barred from office because they were part of an insurrectionist movement – the Confederacy. Then, that disability was removed in 1872. It doesn’t say that persons can’t become so disabled in the future. Somebody who went on to engage in further rebellion in 1880 could be barred (again) from office for that new action. Or, somebody engaging in insurrection in 2021 could become newly disabled.
Using my own common sense to read legal decisions doesn’t always work for me, though.
I hadn’t considered that reading, but it also seems plausible to me. Certainly more likely than the “Nah, we’re ok with any future insurrectionists holding office” interpretation. But then, that’s why I’m not part of the Federalist Society.
An idiom I coined years ago is “anyone can sue, it’s winning that’s the hard part”.
I’ll care if she is convicted and actually gets barred from Congress, otherwise articles like this only serve to raise and dash my hopes within 30 seconds time.
