Yes, to enforce via appropriate legislation. You continue to ignore that part even though I've repeatedly pointed out the difference, that this isn't a matter of legislation it's a matter of adjudication, and Congress is not the body nor does it even have the processes in place to adjudicate matters of law.
Show me where in the US Constitution that if Congress fails in its solely prescribed power to enforce the Constitution (which obviously includes the BoR), then by default it is up to the Judicial Branch of government to enforce the provisions of the Constitution upon the People (whomever is allegedly violating X provision).
If Congress wants to pass a law now determining how the 14th amendment applies or is adjudicated then we'd be constitutionally bound to follow it, until then the language in the 14th is what we we have.
Just because Congress doesn't pass legislation affirming the 14th Amendment and how to enforce the provisions therein, doesn't disqualify the legal merit/weight of the Supreme Law(s) of the Constitution in its Supreme Authority. And the Constitution doesn't require Congress to legislate anything to bind the US Government and State governments to it. They simply must not violate it, which is what many states have been doing and continue to try to do where the 2nd Amendment is concerned. Then the Constitutional question gets adjudicated, and states are repeatedly told "NO! You cannot do that. 'Shall not be infringed' is absolute."
Here we have a Secretary of State exercising authority she simply does not have, and a state (supreme) court making legal determinations without due process of law in labeling Trump an insurrectionist (which he was acquitted of via impeachment) and using bullshit sociological babble about coded language, like the man has ESP and can send signals to his followers brains as commandments, to justify that shitty court ruling removing him from the Colorado ballot. SO! This raises a Constitutional question that the US Supreme Court must review and decide those actions meet Constitutional muster. They don't, and in the next couple months we will hear just that from SCOTUS.
I think it is also noteworthy to point out here that according to what you've been arguing, if based on Section 5 no one else other than Congress can decide Section 3 then the same also applies to Section 1, so every federal case adjudicating Section 1 over the past century and a half were apparently all unconstitutional.
Strawman. Never said "no one else other than Congress can decide" on anything. United States Codes are based on what government is allowed to do per the US Constitution. Those clarify by definitions of terms used throughout said Codes that dictate what is legal and illegal as they pertain to the Amendments and Constitution in and of itself. Same for Federal Statutory Law(s). They have to be in line with the Supreme Law of the land. If and when they are not, then a case is brought in federal court and taken all the way up the ladder to SCOTUS if it cannot be resolved in a lower appellate court.
Take, for example 14/1. The government provides relevant legal definitions related to Sec 1 of the 14th via 1 USC 8. Namely when legal rights, privileges and equal protection of the law is bestowed upon [a] "person." Answer: birth. Which is precisely why a pregnancy has never been granted the same protections as the born living female person impregnated. No one has enhanced rights over another, least of all a pregnancy.
Anyway, we will all be educated on this matter in a couple months when SCOTUS rules. And I will be waiting and watching for it. At that point we can continue this discussion, because as it stands now you're just not getting it. I give you credit for admitting you are not Constitutional Law scholar. That is quite apparent.
