Disagreement

Over my years in Las Cruces I can only think of one or three times I've disagreed with Walt Rubel. Why now?

Walt's 9/16/2022 column on misuse of the14th Amendment is way off. Amazing, though, with almost a ring of truth. The basic argument used is one of a conservative 'originalist.' (E.G., Justice Hugo Black and
modern Justices Scalia, Barrett, and Thomas.)

His column essentially says the Constitution's Article XIV, section 3 is about the rebellious southerners. I agree. That is why it was written.
However, the words "... to support the Constitution of the United States shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof...." are non-descriptive of any specific insurrection or rebellion. A 'living Constitution' interprets the words to make the improper action open ended - not just for
confederates. Nothing new about reinterpreting the words for a 2022 situation, NOT 1868+/-. Walt is using an 'originalist' argument to shoot down a 'living Constitution' argument.

Nuff said. Let's remember that this short essay is not an attempt to settle the 'originalist vs. living' long-term controversy. It is to state a position on one sliver of the pie.


"The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules the government has ever written." (FDR)

Jerry Nachison
Las Cruces