Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.
When you’ve got an outdated document as the backbone of your whole legal system, you kinda have to re-re-interpret everything, no matter what. Originalists tend to be pretty conservative, it’s just a method of thinking that allows conservative lawyers/judges/legal people to slap some legitimacy onto their interpretations. It’s an alternative to the modern (centrist) interpretation of law in the US, which has in recent years allowed for things like gay marriage. However the flavor of conservatism is very “traditional” compared to the modern alt-right, meaning they are also often anti-trump.
That is technically what the amendments are, but it’s so much harder to push an amendment through congress than it is to just argue that the constitution already agrees with what you want to happen
When you’ve got an outdated document as the backbone of your whole legal system, you kinda have to re-re-interpret everything, no matter what. Originalists tend to be pretty conservative, it’s just a method of thinking that allows conservative lawyers/judges/legal people to slap some legitimacy onto their interpretations. It’s an alternative to the modern (centrist) interpretation of law in the US, which has in recent years allowed for things like gay marriage. However the flavor of conservatism is very “traditional” compared to the modern alt-right, meaning they are also often anti-trump.
Imagine if we made new laws that evolved with the time and retired old laws that are clearly anachronistic?
If instead of interpreting and discussing unclear text the legislators just said “we believe this is wrong, and thus - now we change it”.
That’s the job of Congress.
But the Supreme Court can also down those laws too. That was what conservatives attempted with the Affordable Care Act .
Sorry if I was unclear; I was trying to say “imagine if you had a system that worked” 🫣
And I don’t mean that in any negative way, other than to say that the current system is visibly broken.
That is technically what the amendments are, but it’s so much harder to push an amendment through congress than it is to just argue that the constitution already agrees with what you want to happen