The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is Still There. Does it Require a Court to Enforce?

The first time I visited Independence Hall in Philadelphia, I experienced an emotional reaction to being in that place that brought me to tears.  Standing there, with the small group of people that had been in the tour group to which we were assigned, I was listening to the park ranger describe the atmosphere in that room during the writing of the Declaration of Independence, each one of those Patriots sitting there just across that small hallway from the courtroom, which represented the justice system of the King, one of the motivating factors behind the Revolution.  

I'm glad they preserved that room as well, because the description of the trials that took place there is chilling.  Justice, at the discretion of a monarch, is not justice.  It is cruelty designed to remove any motivation in the will for liberty.  It was a constant threat when the Declaration was being drafted.  It was the example of how not to administer justice when the Constitution was drafted, in the same room across the hall from that chilling courtroom.  

I doubt that the founders envisioned a justice system paralyzed by motions for delays, frivolous appeals, diversions, lengthy time periods before trials begin, and more motions.  The whole idea of "speedy trials" was to expedite getting down to the facts of a case so that a defendant did not have to be held for any longer than necessary.  And I'll cut to the chase here.  The influence of people with money have helped politicians build so many complications into the justice system that it is no longer effective in actually administering justice.  Like almost everything else, it's become a partisan political tool.  

If the Justice System Can't Enforce the Law, It's Worthless

What does it say to the American people that our courts are unable to prosecute one of the most heinous crimes ever committed against the people, and the Congress, of the United States?  Whatever tactic existed for delay and obfuscation of the crimes Trump committed leading up to the January 6th insurrection could not be prosecuted by the justice department.  

What kind of message does that send to the people of the United States?  

It says that our laws are worthless, especially when a defendant who commits crimes against the people is prominent, rich, and a politician who gets partisan support to fend off justice.  It says, very clearly, that while we are a nation influenced by privilege and prominence and money, we are no longer a nation of laws.  It says that the people who run the justice department, which should be top quality lawyers and judges, are not capable of prosecuting a relatively simple case in which most of the evidence was handed to them by a Congressional investigation.  

Can The 14th Amendment Be Used in the Time We Have Left Before Electoral Vote Certification?

I don't care how complicated, or consequential, a case may be, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for a justice department taking four years to prosecute.  Congress conducted an investigation and produced evidence.  The justice department should have jumped on that the next day, started the ball rolling and used its power to resist any attempt at delays.  It represents the American people and as one of those people, I'm damn disappointed in the way I was represented.  It was legal malpractice.  Insurrection is the worst crime that can be perpetuated against our country.  The fact that this insurrection, so obviously and visibly instigated by Trump, was let go and treated like any other case messed up by legal red tape, is a travesty.  

The Constitution, however, is still the constitution.  Is there a way to enforce the 14th Amendment without going through a cumbersome and ineffective justice department and court system?  We've been told Trump is an existential threat to democracy.  Shouldn't those who have sworn an oath to the Constitution be defending it by expediting a trial aimed at determining that Trump is not eligible to be President.  Nor is J. D. Vance, since he doesn't see the insurrection for what it is. 

So what recourse do we have at this point to bring about justice for the American people?  This is an amendment to the constitution, and we have an obvious insurrection, and an obvious instigator.  The courts have simply failed, due to their own lack of efficiency and effectiveness, to enforce the law.  These are questions that I hear are being asked.  

Was Trump even charged with insurrection?  And if not, why not?  Was there ever any real intention of holding him accountable, or were they just satisfied going after the peons who got themselves caught up in it?  

This is a huge issue for me.  Has anyone ever thought that one of the possible reasons for Harris losing this election was Democrats who sat at home and didn't vote because the Justice Department dragged its feet and never brought Trump to justice?  That was the first thing that came up in an informal discussion among my neighbors recently, a Polish immigrant brought it up and pointed out that when it appeared Trump would not be brought to justice for any crime he had committed, and that even the state of New York would back down in the hush money case, a lot of Democrats just felt it wasn't worth it to vote.  

Or, is this the first failure to enforce the Constitution before it falls completely on January 20?