Denial ain't just a law school in Egypt

James Taranto argues that the Civil Rights Act could be (should be) justified by the 14th Amendment rather than the Commerce Clause. This is a fairly obvious argument, but one I've not seen made before (and, frankly, I've always thought the 13th Amendment might be a better home for it, partly because of the state action problem). So far as I know Taranto isn't a lawyer. Does anyone know whether this argument is even remotely showing up in the law reviews?

(Until the singularity arrives, I'm going to continue lobbying for the repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments, not to mention the New Deal.)