There are still Democrats talking about using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to bar Donald Trump from holding office again. While I would love to see that outcome, this is a bad legal theory (you can tell it’s a bad legal theory when the first person quoted in the link above is Laurence Tribe). I explained last year why Section 3 would not apply. A sample:
The framers of the 14th Amendment were quite aware of the knotty issues involved in separating active participants in rebellion from those whose rhetoric had perhaps paved the way for secession — some of whom remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War itself. There were extensive controversies in the 1860s over the limits of free speech during the war, and many protests against overzealous crackdowns on “Copperheads” who remained in the Union but criticized the war. By carefully limiting the “rebellion” clause of Section 3 to those who actually “engaged in insurrection or rebellion,” not merely those who incited it, the framers of the amendment made a choice to limit disqualification under the first part of the definition to those who participated once rebellion was underway. . . . [A]s much as Democrats and progressive pundits and historians may wish for a constitutional shortcut around impeachment, the framers of the 14th Amendment did not give them one. Writing in the aftermath of a terrible war, and eager to break the hold of ex-Confederates in the South, they were nonetheless careful to limit the acts that disqualified officeholders to either actively engaging in rebellion, or giving aid to a rebellion that had reached the critical mass of forming its own breakaway government.