With respect, I think it is. 14A is taught and studied by every law student. Section 3 is not. It’s been the quieter or quietest clause of a key amdmt for a long time. I first heard of it post 1/6. This is what they should have written. Obvs the original was laughable.
I would argue that no aspect of the US Constitution can be labeled “obscure” — it’s not that long! It’s the national charter! But especially re the 14th Amendment, regardless of what any of us learned in law school. “Rarely invoked since Reconstruction” perhaps, but not “obscure.”
I get what you’re saying. The 3rd A is rarely invoked. 14AS3 is obscured by its surrounding clauses. If you can’t agree with that, fine. It hasn’t had its moment really until now. The previous uses have been not-recent, not-frequent. And DP and EP are REALLY prominent. Shrug. I’m about done w this.
Last thought: It matters what we call it because many are trying to reduce invocation of the insurrection clause to a mere technicality, some overly legalistic tactic to keep Trump off the ballot, when it’s as fundamental to democracy as the rest of the 14th. It makes sense it’s rarely been needed.
It’s rarely invoked ‘cuz we haven’t had a lot of attempts to outright destroy our Democratic Republic 😖 like the Republican Party has been doing since 2016😡
not obscure; simply disregarded by casual readers, because insurrection by officeholders and oath takers has been mercifully uncommon.
Reconstruction was incomplete and disappointing, but it was enough to prevent at least a hot Civil War II and kept fedgov mostly free of hot revanchists.
it isn't actually lesser-known, it's the one that has the "due process of law" in it! the one that's getting used over time given how broad this provision is
Maybe this is a lawyer-centric view of things, but I think it’s very weird to describe ANY part of the US Constitution “obscure.” I mean it’s the most well-known and referenced US government document in existence, and it’s not much longer than a pamphlet.
Actually, I think it has been used recently. I seem to recall someone being judged ineligeble to be on the ballot as a result of Jan. 6th participation. Will try to find it.
Then it wouldn't be factually wrong, it would just be incredibly ignorant analysis - even if the author doesn't know the history of the 14th amendment, a clause that covers how you handle insurrectionist politicians seems pretty important to me!
There's 27 of them! That level of complexity befuddles even our most advanced supercomputers. No mere mortal could be expected to keep track of that many of anything
Comments
Reconstruction was incomplete and disappointing, but it was enough to prevent at least a hot Civil War II and kept fedgov mostly free of hot revanchists.
Damned typos…
but after Trump's coup attempt, section 3 has been a live issue
btw NYT has now revised the sentence
but in a way that pretends they didn't make a mistake in 1st place, bc the revision misstates the main purpose of 14th amendment
They can call me when they start talking about the 20th amendment.
I'm not even a lawyer. Who...does the NYT think its target audience is??!?