@Npars01@kfury yup. It cannot be overstated how much the Warren Court relied on it and how much conservatives HATED Warren. They literally tried to have him impeached and removed.
Integration ending Jim Crow (Brown v Board) is based on the 14th amendment.
Interracial marriage. 14th.
RIGHT TO PRIVACY. 14th Amendment.
Miranda rights. 14th amendment.
FREE SPEECH is not derived from the 1st Amendment, which protected STATES, but from Warren using the 14th to apply it to us.
The New York Times has always catered to the delusions of the wealthy.
One of those delusions is that their wealth would survive the end of democracy and the start of America's conversion to full-blown oligarchy.
The New York Times believes the repeal of the 14th Amendment would be good, ...well, good for captive consumer markets for the fossil fuel industry and good for the surveillance capitalism of Twitter, Facebook, and Google.
@Npars01 Yes! “Obscure” is that article’s evidence-less weasel word.
NYT style for national and international reporting, est. politics, is to spend the first few paragraphs summarizing the basic facts. Then they shift tone with a paragraph that puts the facts in context. Often, in that paragraph they add, without evidence, an adjective or adverb that slants the whole article toward their preferred narrative.
In this case, “obscure” is not evidence-less — it is an outright lie.
@kfury I mean.. only obscure because it is not something we have had to enforce that often in recent memory.. but it remains a very succinct and poignant amendment..
@scanner Except they don't call A14 sec 3 obscure. They're saying the entire 14th amendment is obscure. And that's something we pretty much enforce every day.
@kfury@michael_robinson you could argue the entire modern American government is built on the 14th Amendment. Everything we think when we think government and civil rights goes through that amendment.
The Gray Lady is carrying water for the Brown Shirts.
@kfury I'm not arguing the correctness of the assertion. Just because it's sloppy diction doesn't mean it can't also be factually incorrect. I mean, it is the New York Times after all.
If one were being charitable, one might surmise the original intention was something along the lines of, "a rarely invoked section of the 14th Amendment".
@michael_robinson Oh I agree. I said as much when I made the original post. By either interpretation it's a ridiculous assertion. Giving them the absolute maximum benefit of the doubt, they may have meant only section 3 of the 14th amendment, but even in that case it's been applied several times without contestation or ambiguity of interpretation, just not to a presidential candidate.
@kfury I’m hoping this episode, whether it ends up removing #trump from the ballots* or not, puts paid to the whole “strict originalist” canard and opens a fissure in the “well-regulated militia” argument.
*As much as I hate to say it, I doubt the christofascist activist majority will follow the constitution and rule against the #MangoMussolini.
@Joe_Hill@Npars01@kfury I can’t see a way to a sensible result in Rahimi that does not give Bruen a severe haircut.
Originalism will come to be seen as an even more transparent travesty, a way to ostensibly justify the most results-oriented jurisprudence.
if not, then in the future wouldn’t the bill of rights be more vulnerable if our only option to preserve those amendments was through federal statute? it’s too tempting of a power grab for the next charlatan(s).
@8124@Npars01@kfury It does, under most jurisprudential approaches. Because otherwise you’re stuck in 1789, and a new Amendment is needed to make, say, the old 1A apply to the interweb. Which is nucking futz.
Or to put the first 13 words back into 2A, after Scalia excised them in Heller.
@kfury I realize that it has a taste of hubris to engage in a language discussion not being a native speaker. But having been made to learn Latin, obscure to me first sounds like dark. Wiktionary tells me it can also mean not well known, difficult to understand or unclear. Putting on my German smarty-pants, I find all these meanings applicable here. So please forgive me if I find your quote not as telling, but quite precise. Also, I happen to like the New York Times.
@realspiffy I appreciate your reply, but none of the definitions fit the fourteenth amendment. It’s one of the most cited and widely applied amendments of all. Article 3 is used far less often than the others, and perhaps that’s what they meant to say, but they said the entire amendment is obscure, which is ridiculous.
@kfury I wonder, is the 1st and 2nd considered obscure? Is the 5th old fashioned? The NYT is a lamprey eel on trumps bloated political carcass. I wouldn’t wrap fish with it.
@kfury Its only “obscure” because of “Democrats in Disarray,” dontcha know. This is why I long ago ceded all my sovereign abilities of rational thought to the incontrovertible geniuses on the Times’ editorial board who righteously oversee humanity’s well-being from behind their precious pay wall.
@kfury they heard you, apparently: “asking the nation’s top court to provide guidance on an obscure clause of a constitutional amendment enacted after the Civil War”
Most news reports are anywhere between 2 sentences to 3 paragraphs long.
Why?
Because they are to the point and report only the facts. Often real-world facts are short and brief.
We don't have real news in America. We have 1 celebrity type reporter interviewing another celebrity type reporter about how they feel and think about what's happening. -- That's not real news.
Add comment