Q: Is it that irrational to ban Trump from the ballot due to January 6th? The 14th amendment is ambiguous!

A: The question of whether it's rational to ban a former president from the ballot due to involvement in an event like January 6th hinges on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, specifically the clause related to insurrection or rebellion. The ambiguity you've noted in the amendment's language means its application can be subject to legal debate and interpretation.

The 14th Amendment states that no person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid to its enemies, can hold office. However, the key issue is how "engagement in insurrection or rebellion" is defined and proven. This requires a legal determination, which can be complex and contentious.

In the case of a former president, such as Donald Trump, a determination would likely involve an extensive legal process. This could include investigations, hearings, and potentially a judicial ruling. The burden of proof would be significant, as it would require demonstrating that the individual's actions unequivocally constituted engagement in insurrection or rebellion.

If the courts were to interpret actions related to January 6th as falling under this provision, and if due process were followed, then keeping such a person off the ballot could be seen as a constitutional application of the 14th Amendment. However, this is a matter of legal interpretation and would likely be subject to significant legal scrutiny and debate.

It's important to note that any action to disqualify a candidate from the ballot would have profound legal and political implications, necessitating a careful and thorough legal process.