Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
So anyone who participated would be disqualified.
Why?
That illustrates the fundamental problem with originalism.
further illustration is needed. What follows is too sketchy, abstract, vague, and subjective
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
|
How would using the words "insurrection" and "rebellion" as they were defined at the time the amendment was written produce unacceptable results? If the results are unacceptable, then the words shouldn't be used in charging the defendant since they would not fit the constitutional language necessary to make the charge. If you want to make a case within the bounds of constitutional law, then you have to use the language of the Constitution. Otherwise, you will subvert the Constitution, and create your own version of law, thereby rewriting the Constitution without proper amendment.
To put it simply, if the words used to make your charge don't comport with the definition of those words in the Constitution, then your charge is unconstitutional.