View Single Post
Old 09-12-2018, 01:16 AM
UltraVires is online now
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
You can take a provision of the Constitution and dismiss it as an historical curiosity when it is, in fact, an historical curiosity--that is, when it hasn't been cited in court cases for a very long time. This is why the First Amendment doesn't qualify, though surely you recognize that. The Third Amendment does, though. It's been quite awhile since troops were quartered in private homes.

Similarly, while the Seventh Amendment is still relevant, "the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars" is something of an historical curiosity, since $20 is no longer considered a significant sum. Suing someone over something valued at $20 won't get you a trial by jury. In fact, your filing fees would be greater than the amount at stake.

But surely as an attorney, you knew all this. Why, I have to wonder, ask in the first place?
But Section 2 of the 14th Amendment is not a historical curiosity or at least nobody has shown that it is. It casts light on how the terms in Section 1 are to be construment. Again, nobody has addressed this except to say that the Supreme Court has held otherwise (which I agree, but without any support) and that progress would have taken longer. I also agree, but the law should be followed even if it produces a bad result; when the law produces a bad result, we can change it. If we cannot change it, then a majority thinks it is not a bad result.

I wish we could address the substance instead of some of the veiled implications that I am a racist or sexist.