Yes, but, for better or for worse, the 14th amendment, as it has come to be interpreted, applies constitutional rights to state governments, as well as the federal government. Originalism doesn't just mean 1787, but also the original intent of subsequent amendments. For example, Colorado made an Originalist argument for disqualifying Tru…
Yes, but, for better or for worse, the 14th amendment, as it has come to be interpreted, applies constitutional rights to state governments, as well as the federal government. Originalism doesn't just mean 1787, but also the original intent of subsequent amendments. For example, Colorado made an Originalist argument for disqualifying Trump based on the 14th amendment - an argument that all nine justices ignored.
Sure, but an Originalist interpretation of the 14th amendment would therefore be characterized by what contemporary understandings of the 14th amendment meant to do and the basic understanding of the text it used. The decades long gap between that ratification and Gitlow vs New York argue against an Originalist understanding permitting Incorporation.
Yes, but, for better or for worse, the 14th amendment, as it has come to be interpreted, applies constitutional rights to state governments, as well as the federal government. Originalism doesn't just mean 1787, but also the original intent of subsequent amendments. For example, Colorado made an Originalist argument for disqualifying Trump based on the 14th amendment - an argument that all nine justices ignored.
Sure, but an Originalist interpretation of the 14th amendment would therefore be characterized by what contemporary understandings of the 14th amendment meant to do and the basic understanding of the text it used. The decades long gap between that ratification and Gitlow vs New York argue against an Originalist understanding permitting Incorporation.