Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
A textual originalist would not have the problem that you represent. He would not base the proper interpretation on "anything characterized" as an "insurrection or rebellion". He would refer to the definition of those words that existed at the time the amendment was written. One of the tricks that Progressives use to twist and torture the Constitution in order to justify the passing of something that is actually unconstitutional is to use current shades of words that were not contemplated at the time the Amendment was created. This is also one of the reasons why they claim that the Constitution is too difficult to interpret.
|
So anyone who participated would be disqualified.
That illustrates the fundamental problem with originalism. Either the theory produces unacceptable results that subvert the constitutional principles it purports to uphold, or history loses relevance because abstract principles are applied to contemporary circumstances unknown at the time the relevant provisions were ratified. Either way, originalism doesn’t work.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device