SpaceX made a bunch of boats.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they're explicitly saying... I feel like there's an equally clickbaity title that could've also been accurate along those lines

2000 was a coup.

Nobody actually misunderstands Section 3. Everybody knows what it means. Some disingenuous fuckwits have tried to pretend they don't actually understand it.

They have argued that what Trump did does not rise to the level of "insurrection". They argued that he did not actually take up arms, but merely "spoke" to people. They argued that he is entitled to "speak" under the First Amendment, and that his "speech" cannot therefore be considered insurrection.

And they have argued that even if his actions did rise to the level of insurrection, the oath he swore as president did not actually include the phrase "support the constitution". The oaths of all other individuals mentioned explicitly do include that phrase, so the argument is that the framers never intended to include the presidency. Since he never swore an oath to "support" the constitution, either as president or earlier in his life, he is not bound by this limitation, and is free to commit insurrection whenever he wants.

And they have argued that even if it was insurrection, and his oath was interpreted in such a way as to apply, the office of "President" is either the United States itself, or above the United States, and not "under" the United States.

And they have argued that even if it was insurrection and his oath was interpreted properly and that the office of President is an office "under" the United States, he is still able to be re-elected because Section 3 is inoperative. This argument relies on Section 5:

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The theory is that Congress has not enacted any law under Section 3 to actually bring it into operation, so the whole section remains dormant and unenforceable.

It's literally just childish denial in adult brains. That's it. The people who disagree are either evil shitlords that WANT a strongman ruler, or dumb morons who quite literally do not understand democracy. There are no sane people that believe he is qualified.

They're claiming the Office of the President doesn't technically fit into any of the offices listed in the 14th amendment.

The office of the president is a weird one. For example, the president is the commander of the military, but is not a part of the military. The president is a civilian position (and technically, the president shouldn't be saluting troops.) So if the president violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but not a civilian law, they couldn't be tried for that.

CLEARLY the 14th amendment would include the president, but lawyers do what lawyers do.

Her statement demonstrates otherwise.