In fact, see The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883), where the Supreme Court ruled that:

[The thirteenth] amendment, as well as the fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances. By its own unaided force and effect it abolished slavery, and established universal freedom.

It doesn’t say that any court has the power to enforce the provisions of the article. It says there in plain English that those powers are left to Congress.

It doesn’t say that any court has the power to enforce the provisions of the article. — NOS4A2

Neither does the 2nd Amendment.

It says there in plain English that those powers are left to Congress. — NOS4A2

No, it simply extends Congress' power. As I mentioned here, the Supreme Court has already ruled that these amendments are "self-executing" (much like the 2nd Amendment), and much like the 2nd Amendment the courts have the power to enforce it.

I’m talking about the 14th amendment, section 5.

A congress full of insurrectionists. A congress full of folk who attempted to stop/obstruct an official proceeding. A congress of folk who continue to commit fraud against the American people.

I’m talking about the 14th amendment, section 5. — NOS4A2

So am I, and so was the Supreme Court in The Civil Rights Cases. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment doesn't entail that the courts cannot enforce Section 4, and Section 2 of the 13th Amendment doesn't entail that the courts cannot enforce Section 1.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and Section 1 of the 13th Amendment are "self-executing", and like every other Constitutional provision (e.g. the 2nd Amendment), the courts have the power to enforce them.

If this congress were responsible for enforcing it as written, they would be forced to conclude that they themselves were disqualified from holding their own positions. Well, a large portion of the republican members anyway.

Section 5 entails that Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of the article. It doesn’t confer that power to anyone else. So why assume someone else can have that power?

If those guilty of what the amendment sets out won an election and were to hold public office and it were up to them to enforce it, it would defeat the very purpose of the amendment. They won't find themselves guilty.

Think about Reconstruction. If state courts were to decide what constituted an insurrection, and who was guilty of it, the southern states could say those who fought for the confederacy were not insurrectionists, and thus could hold office. — NOS4A2

That would never have survived SCOTUS review. The Confederate States had left the US, so attacks on them could not be considered insurrection against the US.

“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” In regards to enforcing these provisions It doesn’t mention states or state courts.

The 14th doesn't say Congress has EXCLUSIVE power to pass legislation to enforce the ban. Similarly, Article I Section 8 states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..."; clearly that's not an exclusive power.

Trump's ban was a consequence of State law.SCOTUS doesn't have appellate jurisdiction over state law, except in the case where that law is deemed unconstitutional.

Congress has passed no law that applies, so SCOTUS would (in effect) be creating law in order to overturn Colorado's Supreme Court Ruling.

I'm not predicting SCOTUS will uphold the ban (I think it's unlikely); I'm just arguing the litigants had as much right to pursue their preferred outcome as did Trump's supporters (like Texas v Pennsylvania), in the many lawsuits to overturn the 2020 election. Don't you agree?

Section 5 entails that Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of the article. It doesn’t confer that power to anyone else. So why assume someone else can have that power? — NOS4A2

The 1st and 2nd Amendments don't confer the power to anyone. So why assume that anyone can enforce them?

On the other hand, the 14th amendment does confer the power to enforce the provisions to Congress, so one can assume correctly that that power belongs with Congress and no one else.

On the other hand, the 14th amendment does confer the power to enforce the provisions to Congress, so one can assume correctly that that power belongs with Congress and no one else. — NOS4A2

How would that work if there were members in congress who were guilty of what the article sets out?

Guilty according to who?

The judge doesn't matter at this point.

If they were guilty, by whatever means you find acceptable, what sense would it make for them to have the sole exclusive power to enforce the article?

On the other hand, the 14th amendment does confer the power to enforce the provisions to Congress, so one can assume correctly that that power belongs with Congress and no one else. — NOS4A2

One would be assuming incorrectly.

See also the Supreme Court's ruling on the 15th Amendment in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966)

Section 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment declares that

"[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

This declaration has always been treated as self-executing, and has repeatedly been construed, without further legislative specification, to invalidate state voting qualifications or procedures which are discriminatory on their face or in practice.

The notion that the inclusion of Section 2 entails that there must be a federal law that grants citizens the right to vote is a false one. Section 1 is enough, and if someone is denied the vote then they may petition the courts to enforce their right. Congress doesn't need to get involved.

The purpose of the article is to prohibit insurrectionists and those who give aid and comfort to insurrectionists from holding public office. It makes no sense whatsoever to confer the power to execute/enforce the article to the very people who have given and continue to offer aid and comfort to insurrectionists.

Holding public office prior to offering aid and comfort to insurrectionists does not exonerate one from the article.

Just as the article prohibited confederate officials after the Civil War, it applies equally to those currently in congress who attempted to obstruct an official proceeding as well as all of those who've given aid and comfort to insurrectionists.

If the power of enforcing the article was exclusively conferred to congress, it would be completely incapable of removing any members guilty of what the article sets out. Given that the very purpose of the article is to prohibit such members, it is clear that that interpretation is wrong.

it's going to be interesting. Will politics trump principals? My prediction is that the conservative justices will find some way to wave their hands and rule against Colorado. But it would make me very happy to be wrong. — EricH

My prediction is that they will stay the ruling beyond Jan 4th because they're too busy to hear it right now, after which they will declare the case moot as Trump would have already been added to the ballot.

Holding public office or being on the ballot does not exonerate one from the article.

The notion that there must also be a federal law that grants citizens the right to vote is a false one. Section 1 is enough, and if someone is denied the vote then they may petition the courts to enforce their right. Congress doesn't need to get involved.

Yes it invalidates state voting qualifications or procedures which are discriminatory on their face or in practice. It doesn’t invalidate Congress’ power to enforce the provisions of the article. Congress could repeal the entire amendment if they wanted to. That’s because only Congress has the power to enforce them.

It’s the same with the 13th and 14th. The cases you cited were clearly about slavery, and the violation of voting rights, not about section 3. The “self-executing” as it is described in both your cases is about nullifying the power of the states to violate those rights. The disqualification section is not about a state violating rights, and therefor it cannot be said that that particular section is self-executing and immediately bars someone from the holding office should some state court decide they are guilty of insurrection. Either way I assume the Supreme Court will clarify the matter.

Holding public office or being on the ballot does not exonerate one from the article. — creativesoul

True, but the particular case brought before the Colorado Supreme Court was to stop Trump being added to the Republican primary ballot. If Trump is on the ballot, or otherwise wins the Republican primary without winning Colorado, further litigation will be required to remove him from the actual Presidential election.

I think that is likely, but would replace "because" with "based on the excuse that they're too busy".

Congress could repeal the entire amendment if they wanted to. — NOS4A2

No it can't. Congress does not have the power to repeal the Thirteenth, the Fourteenth, or the Fifteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that each are self-executing.

The judge doesn't matter at this point.

If they were guilty, by whatever means you find acceptable, what sense would it make for them to have the sole exclusive power to enforce the article?

They wouldn’t have the power because they would be barred from being in Congress.

Right. It seems to me that that article applies much much more broadly than is currently being applied. In other words, it is clear that a large number of current elected officials ought be removed from their office, and many of them are currently holding congressional positions.

It was my understanding that Congress can repeal an amendment with another amendment, which it has done before.

The judge doesn't matter at this point.

If they were guilty, by whatever means you find acceptable, what sense would it make for them to have the sole exclusive power to enforce the article?

They wouldn’t have the power because they would be barred from being in Congress. — NOS4A2

If they were members at the time they gave aid and comfort to insurrectionists, they would.

First they would need an insurrection and insurrectionists to give comfort to. But no one has been charged with insurrection, so it’s kind of moot.

It was my understanding that Congress can repeal an amendment with another amendment, which it has done before. — NOS4A2

A new amendment requiring 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of States can repeal any Amendment, including the First.

But that’s not what we’re talking about. You are arguing that if Congress does not establish the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendment as law then they are effectively moot and that the courts cannot enforce them if petitioned by affected parties. That is simply not the case. The Supreme Court has already ruled that they are self-executing, and like every other self-executing provision of the Constitution, the courts can enforce them.