Not only is what you're saying obviously correct, but THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED IN THE FUCKING AMENDMENT was asked about this exact lack of the word "president", and pointed to the officer line, and said that clearly included the president.

It's also worth noting that there was just a single reference in the Senate debate to the fact that the president and vice president were not explicitly mentioned in Howard's draft as "officer(s) of the United States," the way members of Congress and state officials had been itemized in the text. Would the disqualification clause of the amendment not cover the top posts in the executive branch?

"Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson.

Maine's Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify.

"Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/framers-14th-amendments-disqualification-clause-analysis/story?id=105996364

It sounds to me like they are going to weasel out of it by saying the Colorado Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to make that decision for everyone.

Which they didn't.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified and cannot appear on the Colorado ballots. The Colorado Supreme Court does have that authority, because the Colorado state legislature gave it to them and nothing in federal law says they don't. Colorado had previously disqualified another candidate, and the judge who determined they could was Neil Gorsuch.

There is no question as to whether the President is an officer of the United States. There is no question as to whether his oath to uphold and defend the constitution is also an oath to support the constitution. There is no question as to whether the actions on January 6th were an insurrection, as several participants have already been convicted of seditious conspiracy. There is no question as to whether Trump supported them, because he live tweeted his support to the world in real time. There is no question as to whether Trump needs to be convicted, because the amendment never mentions conviction, and none of the other people previously disqualified under this amendment from office were convicted of anything.

None of these arguments holds even the faintest hint of water. They are bad faith arguments made by political hacks with a predetermined agenda to support Trump. The court is illegitimate, and we have no functional justice system.

They could be taking an absurdly and ultimately pointless stance that primaries aren't covered by the constitution and his presence is meaningless on the ballot of a private group. It would allow Trump on the primary ballot and still give the option for blocking him in the general election, or more likely the electors ballot.

They could go so far as to say being elected is fine, but he would be disqualified from taking the oath and becoming president, so in a Trump victory the vice president is the real winner.

While you're correct, SCOTUS will most likely rule on the basis of this being "too politicized" and write some vague motions to support it. "Officer of the US" is just one of the many avenues they can take. It's not the first time they've skirted controversial rulings this way.

Tbf it's also worked in reverse to uphold lower court rulings affirming civil rights, etc in the past too. Right or wrong, it's a "how the sausage is made" moment for the Judiciary Branch.

To be clear: I personally believe not upholding the Colorado/Maine, etc rulings to be a failure of our systems of checks and balances. Just pointing out the mechanism behind the court's choices.

In what warped reality is the President of the United States not “an officer of the US”?

The one where POTUS is the only "officer" not mentioned in section 3 of the 14th amendment. This was brought up in the case today at 1:57:10 https://www.youtube.com/live/6VpJKUscNaM?si=r1DuX5F82so1XaTB&t=7032

Justice Jackson asks,

Then why didn't they put the word President in the very enumerated list in section 3? They were listing people that were barred and president is not there.

Murray (representing Colorado Voters) answered this referring to the debates in congress that occurred over section 3.

Johnson said why haven't you included president in the language? Moore responds, we have. Look at the language any office under the United States...

Jackson cuts in,

doesn't that at least suggest ambiguity?

This part was very satisfying to hear...

Murray goes on to argue (1:59:03) that those listed in the section three (presidential electors and senators and representatives) do not hold offices while the constitution does say the presidency does hold an office (though he didn't indicate where is says this).

Jackson moves on from this after saying she appreciated the argument.

I felt this was a very important and convincing exchange. So, fingers crossed.

Reference https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.