Officers of the United States: Neither the President nor Vice President are Officers of the United States

[Sigblitz]

The last paragraph, that's brilliant.

 

[chipbennett]

Interesting take. I'm guessing since the was no President or Vice President on the Rebel side, they didn't think to include them.

The Confederates, as part and as a condition of their surrender, admitted guilt. How they were treated with respect to their insurrection/treason and how they were considered under 14A Section 3 would have precisely zero bearing on how that section would be interpreted for any future insurrectionists.

 

[chipbennett]

There's also the sticking point of Section 5, that (conveniently?) gets omitted from this discussion. 14A Section 5 gives Congress the authority to enforce the amendment. Congress, pursuant to that authority, defined "insurrection" via 18 USC 2383 as a criminal act. Thus, to be prohibited under 14A Section 3, one must be convicted of treason as per 18 USC 2383. Conviction of a crime requires all requisite due process (also as per 14A).

All those who say "conviction isn't a condition of 14A Section 3" simply ignore 14A Section 5. Congress did not leave room for random state supreme court justices or secretaries of state to make arbitrary determinations that persons have "engaged in" insurrection.

 

[foszoe]

There's also the sticking point of Section 5, that (conveniently?) gets omitted from this discussion. 14A Section 5 gives Congress the authority to enforce the amendment. Congress, pursuant to that authority, defined "insurrection" via 18 USC 2383 as a criminal act. Thus, to be prohibited under 14A Section 3, one must be convicted of treason as per 18 USC 2383. Conviction of a crime requires all requisite due process (also as per 14A).

All those who say "conviction isn't a condition of 14A Section 3" simply ignore 14A Section 5. Congress did not leave room for random state supreme court justices or secretaries of state to make arbitrary determinations that persons have "engaged in" insurrection.

Sue for defamation?

 

[KG1]

There's also the sticking point of Section 5, that (conveniently?) gets omitted from this discussion. 14A Section 5 gives Congress the authority to enforce the amendment. Congress, pursuant to that authority, defined "insurrection" via 18 USC 2383 as a criminal act. Thus, to be prohibited under 14A Section 3, one must be convicted of treason as per 18 USC 2383. Conviction of a crime requires all requisite due process (also as per 14A).

All those who say "conviction isn't a condition of 14A Section 3" simply ignore 14A Section 5. Congress did not leave room for random state supreme court justices or secretaries of state to make arbitrary determinations that persons have "engaged in" insurrection.

Not to mention that Congress tried to remedy the alleged "insurrection" with an impeachment already that failed to convict.

 

[jwamplerusa]

Officer of the United States:
Why neither the President nor Vice President are “Officers of the United States”
What is one and how does a person become one? There is an immense amount of misinformation and disinformation about this as it falls under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment covering disqualification from holding elected or appointed offices in the United States. The lies claiming the President is an "Officer of the United States" have become endless, twisting legal and constitutional definitions into entangled spaghetti bowls of convoluted, alleged logic to justify their predetermined conclusions.

The United States is a Sovereign State with all the internationally recognized powers and responsibilities of a Sovereign State. As a Sovereign State, it is not subject to rule or governance by any other Sovereign State. It is its own entity, entitled to make its own decisions and to act on its own as it sees fit to do so. Should it do something dastardly, such as commit War Crimes, its leadership and those involved in such acts can eventually be held accountable by international standards. As a Sovereign State the United States actually has Dual Sovereignty. Each state within the United States has its own, albeit limited, Sovereignty and Sovereign powers. Primarily under the 10th Amendment, as now limited by Equal Protections portions of the 14th Amendment, those Sovereign Powers not retained by the U.S. Constitution for the Federal Government are Sovereign Powers of each state. Beyond stating that a person can be tried for the same crime in both a Federal and a State Court (big surprise to some defendants) I won’t dive into the Dual Sovereignty further. It's not relevant here.

As a Sovereign State, it has two Sovereigns, a President and a Vice President, with their Sovereign Powers enumerated in Article II of the Constitution. The President, in Section 1, Clause 1, is vested with powers of being the Executive. In other words, the President is the nation’s Head of State. The President’s Oath of Office is specifically enumerated in Section 1, Clause 8, and it is unique. Other Oaths of Office may have some similarity, but they are distinctly different and they are not enumerated in the Constitution.

Article II, Section 2 enumerates their powers. Clause 2 empowers the President to make appointments to various Offices within the Executive Branch and to the Article III Courts, with the Advice and Consent of the U.S. Senate approving them. After enumerating specific Federal Offices, the clause continues with:
“ . . . and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law . . .”

The President appoints “Officers of the United States”, with confirmation of such appointments made by the Senate. This is in keeping with the generally recognized international concept of someone being an “Officer of [fill in name of Sovereign State]”. The Sovereign delegates a portion of his Sovereign Powers to a person appointed to carry them out on his behalf. That delegation is nearly always embodied in a Commission from the Sovereign, or an equivalent document. In addition, that individual is limited to exercising only those Sovereign Powers specifically delegated. Section 3 specifically requires the President to Commission all "Officers of the United States" with a Commission document. This requirement is so there is no confusion or ambiguity as to whether a person is or is not an "Officer of the United States". This is a Magisterial Duty, not a Discretionary one. It is required to be executed. The President and Vice President do not appoint themselves, delegate Sovereign Powers to themselves, or Commission themselves with Sovereign Powers that they already possess as Sovereigns per the Constitution. It would be incongruous, illogical and ludicrous for a Sovereign President to delegate his own Sovereign Powers to himself self-referentially, and issue a Commission to himself as constitutionally required, and taking an additional Commissioning Oath, to act on his own behalf, with the Senate having to confirm it. Thus, neither the President, nor the Vice President are “Officers of the United States” by the definition of what constitutes one in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, and how one becomes an Officer of the United States by Presidential Appointment with “Advice and Consent” of the Senate (i.e. Senate Confirmation). An Officer of the United States attempting to overstep the Sovereign Powers delegated to them is patently illegal, and an excellent way under some circumstances to end up in prison. Both the President and Vice President are "Sovereigns" with "Sovereign Powers" as enumerated, and are not "Officers of the United States".

I am an “Officer of the United States” and will be to the day I die. A Retired Commissioned Officer retains the duties and responsibilities of an Officer of the United States for life, and continues to be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for life. Charges under the UCMJ are exceptionally rare. They’re usually pursued by a Federal Prosecutor in a Federal Court, but a few have been charged and tried under the UCMJ over the years. I repeatedly had the knife and fork training about what is and is not an “Officer of the United States” and the limits of the Sovereign Powers delegated to me by the President to act on his behalf within the Armed Forces (deriving from the President’s Sovereign Power as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces). It was required content in every service school I attended over the years. Warrant Officers (W-1 Grade), Non-Commissioned Officers, and Enlisted Personnel do not have those delegated powers as outlined (primarily) in Title 10 of the United States Code. My Commission delegating those Sovereign Powers to me was issued and signed by the President of the United States. My appointment to each rank was confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

One need not consider whether or not January 6th 2021 was a riot or an insurrection, or whether the President incited it, or whether the 14th Amendment is "Self Executing" absent a Congressional Act or a Federal Judicial Judgement. Application of the 14th Amendment to a former President or Vice President fails and is completely mooted by the fact the President and Vice President are Sovereigns, not "Officers of the United States" or any other appointed or elected individual enumerated within the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment. Note that Joe Biden was a U.S. Senator for many years. As such, he is subject to the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment. One could argue endlessly about whether he's disqualified from office, and I won't do that here. It would not be fruitful to the purpose of this posting.

@JAL


Thank you!

I recently finished a book on the Plantagenet Kings of Normandy and England. The concepts and traditions regarding Kingship and monarchal power have given me a different understanding of some of the concepts and beliefs in force during development and ratification of the Constitution of the United States.

Before reading that book, I would have argued that Article II Section 1 implied the President and Vice President were "Officers of the United States". After the book however; I can comprehend that in the context of late 18th century western civilization which really only knew monarchal power, the President was correlated with King which was "the Sovereign". In that context your explanation makes perfect sense, as the lesser Nobles were "granted lands and charters". The analogy being an "Officer of the United States" was effectively the equivalent of a monarchal Noble granted delegated powers from the "Sovereign" (the President) with a very different methodology of creation.

Really, in the context of 1787, there is no other context. If the President of the United States was not a "Sovereign" then no European Monarch would have given the office any respect whatsoever. Further, no European military would have considered any U.S. Army Officer "an Officer", and would have treated them with the same disdain and cruelty they did the serfs of their European adversaries.

 

[jwamplerusa]

The thing we conservatives need to be mindful of, is the left no longer wants to be bound by the Constitution, so while conservatives are binding themselves to the limits of the Constitution the left is running over them. We were given a republic if we can keep it…

@Ingomike

Please, don't think of yourself as a "conservative", think of yourself as a Constitutionalist. I made that transition a few years ago, and it was intellectually liberating, as it provided an objective measure to both defend and to learn the basis of that objective measure (see my earlier post).

Conservatism has one major weakness, it has no objective measure other than being "right of the left". As "the Left" has become full on Communist / wackiest of the French Revolution Left, conservatism moves to the left as well. (Not willingly, it is simply a function of the lunacy)

The Constitution of the United States, and the contemporaneous writings, history, and societal structures set forth an objective measure to determine whether our Federal government, elected servants, and unelected bureaucrat employees are acting within the restrictions of the Constitution which authorizes their existence. That starts with a 9th and 10th Amendment test. (One of the reasons the Bruen decision gives me hope)

You are sadly one hundred percent correct regarding the latter part of the quoted statement. Which leads us to this.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."​

​

Personally I pray that we are still where the above can be accomplished through the first three boxes through vigorous enforcement of the existing Constitution, not replacement.

From Thomas Jefferson's letter to William Stephens Smith.

​

"...What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure..."​

 

[Quiet Observer]

If persons are officers by virtue of their holding an office, then why is the President not an officer when the Constitution designates the presidency as an office?

"Article II, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"

Why does he take an oath of office?

I am unaware of the Vice-President being a sovereign. Upon replacing the President, he then becomes a sovereign. The Constitution designates the VP as President of the Senate. It also gives the Senate to designate "other officers. The word "other" indicates that the VP is an officer.

"The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States".

 

[Sigblitz]

"The Senate shall chuse their pineapple, and also bacon,

Not the same.

 

[JAL]

If persons are officers by virtue of their holding an office, then why is the President not an officer when the Constitution designates the presidency as an office?

"Article II, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"

Why does he take an oath of office?

I am unaware of the Vice-President being a sovereign. Upon replacing the President, he then becomes a sovereign. The Constitution designates the VP as President of the Senate. It also gives the Senate to designate "other officers. The word "other" indicates that the VP is an officer.

"The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States".

Both the President and VP are elected by the Electoral College, which is itself elected by The People to that specific role. They're not appointed by anyone. Someone merely holding an appointed office doesn't equate to being an Officer of the United States. The White House Spokesman holds that appointed office at the pleasure of the President, but it's not one that make that person an Officer of the United States -- which would require a Commission and a Senate Confirmation. All Officers of the United States MUST be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. No exceptions. Do they appoint themselves? Does the U.S. Senate confirm the President is the President or the VP being the VP following self-referential appointments? Nope.

Go back to the fundamentals constitutionally required for someone being an Officer of the United States:
* Appointed by the President who delegates some of his specific Sovereign Powers to them
* Receives a Commission from the President outlining those Sovereign Powers so delegated and their limitations
* Receives Senate Confirmation to be an Officer of the United States
* Acceptance of that appointment requires an Oath of Office (Allegiance to Constitution) per Article VI. It's not in Article II, nor is its wording specified. Article VI is very short. The oath(s) under Article VI are in the Oath Act of 1789, the very first Act of Congress. It has been amended several times, the last one of which that I'm aware of was in 1884, from which all current oaths are derived, including the Vice President's. However, taking an oath under that Act does not make one an Officer of the United States. All of the other three conditions are required.

Military commissioned officers are not the only people holding commissions from the President. All U.S. Ambassadors, Supreme Court Justices, Federal Court Judges, Cabinet Officers, Agency Heads, and some others, hold commissions appointing them, albeit distinctly different; they're not military. However, neither Senators nor House members are commissioned. They are elected.

The Presidential Oath is required in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8. It's not discretionary and the President cannot be President without taking said oath. That is why LBJ took that oath on board Air Force One. We didn't have a President until he did.

The Senate doesn't choose or designate the VP to be the President of the Senate. It's vested in the VP's Sovereign Powers by the Constitution. The Sovereign Powers of the VP are very limited, near nil. That's about the only Sovereign Power the VP has. The VP is there primarily to succeed the President in the event the President can no longer serve. It provides an heir, similar to a Monarchy's Crown Prince. Making the VP President of the Senate was the original founders' way of giving the VP something to do other than pitching pennies and drinking at the local pub -- plus breaking Senate tie votes. In most Parliamentary Monarchies, the Monarch can preside over the Parliament, typically the upper chamber, but very rarely does except for some ceremonial occasions. You will see a usually vacant throne in the British Parliament's House of Lords reserved for the Monarch's use. Our Constitution split this Power between the President and VP.

Hope this helps clarify some things.

 

[chipbennett]

@Ingomike

Please, don't think of yourself as a "conservative", think of yourself as a Constitutionalist. I made that transition a few years ago, and it was intellectually liberating, as it provided an objective measure to both defend and to learn the basis of that objective measure (see my earlier post).

Conservatism has one major weakness, it has no objective measure other than being "right of the left". As "the Left" has become full on Communist / wackiest of the French Revolution Left, conservatism moves to the left as well. (Not willingly, it is simply a function of the lunacy)

The Constitution of the United States, and the contemporaneous writings, history, and societal structures set forth an objective measure to determine whether our Federal government, elected servants, and unelected bureaucrat employees are acting within the restrictions of the Constitution which authorizes their existence. That starts with a 9th and 10th Amendment test. (One of the reasons the Bruen decision gives me hope)

You are sadly one hundred percent correct regarding the latter part of the quoted statement. Which leads us to this.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."​

​

Personally I pray that we are still where the above can be accomplished through the first three boxes through vigorous enforcement of the existing Constitution, not replacement.

From Thomas Jefferson's letter to William Stephens Smith.

​

"...What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure..."​

This is why I now just call my political ideology "the Declaration of Independence."

 

[JAL]

@JAL


Thank you!

I recently finished a book on the Plantagenet Kings of Normandy and England. The concepts and traditions regarding Kingship and monarchal power have given me a different understanding of some of the concepts and beliefs in force during development and ratification of the Constitution of the United States.

Before reading that book, I would have argued that Article II Section 1 implied the President and Vice President were "Officers of the United States". After the book however; I can comprehend that in the context of late 18th century western civilization which really only knew monarchal power, the President was correlated with King which was "the Sovereign". In that context your explanation makes perfect sense, as the lesser Nobles were "granted lands and charters". The analogy being an "Officer of the United States" was effectively the equivalent of a monarchal Noble granted delegated powers from the "Sovereign" (the President) with a very different methodology of creation.

Really, in the context of 1787, there is no other context. If the President of the United States was not a "Sovereign" then no European Monarch would have given the office any respect whatsoever. Further, no European military would have considered any U.S. Army Officer "an Officer", and would have treated them with the same disdain and cruelty they did the serfs of their European adversaries.

I got into a massive haggling elsewhere with another individual claiming a Sovereign can only be a King or Emperor and that the President and VP are neither one. He was absolutely unwilling to budge on that as it enabled him to make the argument that Trump tried to crown himself King with Absolute Monarchy Powers. Anything less than that would have ruined his narrative, just like Galileo ran into with The Church when he claimed the Earth orbited the Sun. It destroyed their conceptual "man center of universe" as a physical reality narrative that could be used to prove it. The Church couldn't let go of it being only a Theological concept and not a physical reality.

In a Republic, the Sovereign wields the Sovereign Powers of a Sovereign State, although those may be constrained by a Constitution, or by a Parliamentary Act. Being called a King or Emperor isn't required. It's the Head of State that represents the Sovereign State and is often the Head of Government (the operative part carrying out day to day business of the Sovereign State) except in most Parliamentary systems.

Two Sovereign Powers the President does not have (by the Constitution):
* Declaring War -- which is reserved to both houses of Congress having to pass a Joint Resolution.
* Appropriating money from the Treasury. Appropriations are made by the House and require concurrence by the Senate.

As the UK is a useful comparison, The Crown doesn't have the breadth of unquestioned or unchecked Sovereign Powers once held. The Queen had to summon the Prime Minister when Argentina invaded the Falklands -- and very strongly suggested he do something about it. Likewise, the reigning monarch cannot reach into the UK Treasury and spend money without authorization to do so. The Monarchy there lives on a "stipend" or if you wish, call it an "allowance", albeit quite generous. The Monarchy in the UK is mostly titular, although the Queen and now King do sometimes speak on behalf of the nation as a whole, albeit in very measured tones and manner, usually to draw public attention to things that need attention, so as to remain apolitical above the Parliamentary frays.

 

[chipbennett]

If persons are officers by virtue of their holding an office, then why is the President not an officer when the Constitution designates the presidency as an office?

"Article II, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"

Why does he take an oath of office?

I am unaware of the Vice-President being a sovereign. Upon replacing the President, he then becomes a sovereign. The Constitution designates the VP as President of the Senate. It also gives the Senate to designate "other officers. The word "other" indicates that the VP is an officer.

"The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States".

John Roberts explains (citations omitted, text abbreviated):

Before the District Court, petitioners argued that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act contravened the separation of powers by conferring wide-ranging executive power on Board members without subjecting them to Presidential control. Petitioners also challenged the Act under the Appointments Clause, which requires “Officers of the United States” to be appointed by the President with the Senate’s advice and consent.

The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies … subject to his superintendence.”

For example, many civil servants within independent agencies would not qualify as “Officers of the United States,” who “exercis[e] significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,” The parties here concede that Board members are executive “Officers,” as that term is used in the Constitution. We do not decide the status of other Government employees, nor do we decide whether “lesser functionaries subordinate to officers of the United States” must be subject to the same sort of control as those who exercise “significant authority pursuant to the laws.”

Petitioners contend that finding the Commission to be the head will invalidate numerous appointments made directly by the Chairman, such as those of the “heads of major [SEC] administrative units.” Assuming, however, that these individuals are officers of the United States, their appointment is still made “subject to the approval of the Commission.” We have previously found that the department head’s approval satisfies the Appointments Clause, in precedents that petitioners do not ask us to revisit.

SCOTUS, Free Enterprise Fund v Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)

"Officers of the United States" are appointed, not elected.

 

[KG1]

John Roberts explains (citations omitted, text abbreviated):

SCOTUS, Free Enterprise Fund v Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)

"Officers of the United States" are appointed, not elected.

In the simplest of terms. The presidency is an office. The president is an elected office holder not an appointed officer.

 

[Ingomike]

And if Trump wins all these details will likely become even more interesting. Specifically, what civil servants can a President fire? Can agreements made by previous presidents and congress bind future presidents in the administration of the actual people working for the administration…

 

[JAL]

And if Trump wins all these details will likely become even more interesting. Specifically, what civil servants can a President fire? Can agreements made by previous presidents and congress bind future presidents in the administration of the actual people working for the administration…

Those who were appointed by a previous POTUS can and usually are fired on day one. Those employees in/under Civil Service System are a different matter. There is an Executive Level within the Civil Service, versus the "GS" levels, and those individuals are more easily dispensed with. One of Trump's major blunders early on was not cleaning house. Then he brought in some questionable individuals as advisers very early on who quickly turned out to be worse than worthless. He quickly adjusted to that, but never did clean house in the manner he should have.

 

[Ingomike]

Those employees in/under Civil Service System are a different matter.

This will be the crux of the issue, these employees are not acting like nonpartisan cogs in a wheel and instead are acting politically. Take the IRS for example, it did not require some grand political scheme with clandestine meetings with Obama for the employees to know they were helping the leftist cause by declining applications of conservative leaning organizations.

Another example is DOE not implementing the president’s programs as directed, rather slow walking to get beyond the administration.

These IMHO are political acting employees and therefore have forfeited civil service protections…

 

[BugI02]

Interesting take. I'm guessing since the was no President or Vice President on the Rebel side, they didn't think to include them.

Former secretary of war, military man and then-Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis was elected Confederate president. Ex-Georgia governor, congressman and former anti-secessionist Alexander H. Stephens became vice-president of the Confederate States of America

 

[DragonGunner]

There was no insurection. That should be the SCOTUS ruling. End of debate.

 

[JAL]

Former secretary of war, military man and then-Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis was elected Confederate president. Ex-Georgia governor, congressman and former anti-secessionist Alexander H. Stephens became vice-president of the Confederate States of America

None of them were a U.S. President or U.S. Vice President. Read the Disqualification Clause. It enumerates the elected and appointed offices held in the U.S. and State Governments prior to secession and the war.

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 . . .

Emphasis mine. The enumerated offices are those that had been held in the U.S. and State Governments prior to the war. Jefferson Davis had been the U.S. Secretary of War and a U.S. Senator. Stephens had been the Georgia Governor prior to secession while it was part of the Union, and a Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives. Having held those U.S. and State offices prior to the war was their disqualification. It doesn't enumerate any specific offices held within the Confederacy. Only that the person who had held one of the enumerated offices prior to the war had been actively part of the Confederate war effort within the CSA governments or military. Didn't matter that Davis and Stephens were the CSA President and Vice President, only that they held an office within its governments. Anyone who hadn't held one of the enumerated U.S. or State Government offices prior to the war wasn't disqualified under the 14th Amendment, and it didn't matter what office they held in the CSA.

That should provide some clarity.