@gkmizuno I wouldn't--and the Court didn't--say 2383 was *tied* to 14A directly. As I recall 2383 predated the amendment after all. The Court only cited it as an example of relevant Congressional action.

2383 is separate but relevant. A citation of guilt under 2383 is one way the 14A question might have been resolved in the case. Still a separate, parallel procedure.

But here's a different thought that sheds light on the whole thing: was 2383 constitutional in the first place? Can even Congress by statute interfere with constitutional offices like that?

It may be that you'd need to think about it the other way around: **14A enables 2383, not the other way around.**

I make this point to illustrate that 14A remains in effect even if it's not applied. 14A continues to enable Congress, empowering Congress, whether Congress chooses to use that power.

That's the real impact of 14A in this framing. It authorizes things like 2383.