The word “support” isn’t in there, but three words that are a fairly comprehensive definition of support are
I have found over the years, in general, conservatives are concrete thinkers, so abstractions completely elude them. This is an example. And to further elucidate, it would make no sense for Congress to write and then have ratified an amendment which excluded the office of the presidency (and vice president) from the same restrictions as for other offices.
It is common for conservatives to use the phrase, "but I didn't say that word". Yes, but you used every word in the dictionary which would mean the same thing, therefore I may infer you meant THAT word as well. This is mostly seen in racial or bigoted comments.
Your comment on the difference between running for and holding office I think is worth consideration. So how would the relevant parties prevent someone who engaged in insurrection or rebellion from taking office after winning an election? Within the context of the aftermath of the War Between the States, I can see the writers having an understanding that people who had participated in the war against the Constitution and the United States would not have the gall to run for office, and if they had they would immediately be thrown off the ballot. So it would appear to me that Secretaries of State would preemptively delete anyone engaged in an insurrection (or rebellion) against the Constitution, once a court had a finding that person was indeed a participant in insurrection. On the flip side, how would anyone prevent an insurrectionist, who had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution, after winning an election, from taking the oath of office? Would they tackle them on the dais? Trip them on the way to the dais? Call out the National Guard? So I think a preemptive filing is the path forward.
I want to hear what others are thinking on this issue!!!
