Describing either the amendment (ridiculous!) or the "clause" (almost as ridiculous!) as "obscure" is one of those little 'objective journalist' things they all deny. Not going to read minds, but the effect is to diminish, to suggest it's a reach, to right up front cast doubt on the legitimacy.
I actually think most journalism can be better if such things are "allowed" but the worst paradigm is the one we are in, which is that journalists do this stuff constantly but pretend they don't.
If by "obscure" they mean "rarely invoked," well, I suppose that's true, but it perhaps is not making the right point!
