Relevant excerpt of the 14th Amendment: Setting aside the things that have clearly changed since the time this amendment came into force (e.g., males aged 21 or older), there is certainly an...
Relevant excerpt of the 14th Amendment:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Setting aside the things that have clearly changed since the time this amendment came into force (e.g., males aged 21 or older), there is certainly an interesting legal question of what it means to participate in "other crime", which seems likely to be the focal point of any arguments.
While I'm lacking some historical context (i.e., other than what the article provides), this seems to severely limit the viability of the claim that "states that infringe the vote must lose representation in Congress". It's almost disingenuous/clickbaity to frame the article this way. But it's definitely a good starting point for thinking about how to actually bring this to the judicial system.
Relevant excerpt of the 14th Amendment:
Setting aside the things that have clearly changed since the time this amendment came into force (e.g., males aged 21 or older), there is certainly an interesting legal question of what it means to participate in "other crime", which seems likely to be the focal point of any arguments.
While I'm lacking some historical context (i.e., other than what the article provides), this seems to severely limit the viability of the claim that "states that infringe the vote must lose representation in Congress". It's almost disingenuous/clickbaity to frame the article this way. But it's definitely a good starting point for thinking about how to actually bring this to the judicial system.