Legislative history is almost completely meaningless in Judicial analysis. That is a fundamental axiom. Be glad or we wouldn’t have many of the 2nd Amendment protections we now enjoy.
This article is a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th. Amend it. But claiming it doesn’t say what it says is a fools errand.
I just heard on the radio others emphasize
Isn't the absence of allegiance enough to deny citizenship without having to amend the 14th?
“Legislative history is almost completely meaningless in Judicial analysis. “
Regarding rules of legal construction in analyzing statutes, here, a constitutional amendment, that’s not right.
One of the first, the most salient things a court does—or is supposed to do—in construing a statute: in applying `black letter law,’ is to attempt to determine what it is the legislature intended.
It isn’t a court’s job to speculate or legislate itself, and if it isn’t attempting to ascertain what the lawmakers intended, then what is it doing? It is making law.
Lately the law is whatever the federal district court says it is, even if a state legislature or public mandate has reached a clear, even overwhelming decision opposite that sought by the democrats’ political agenda, SEE: homosexual marriage.
The reason the Democrats don’t want that standard procedure followed is that it would result in the abandonment of the “birthright citizenship” rule.
Our Congress may have been filled with vengeful northern “re-constructionists” unrestrained by a martyred Lincoln, but it takes a vivid imagination (or a Mexican law degree) to take the position that they intended to make the United States of America the nest for all the cowbirds of the world who could steal across our borders.
Here you go.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Canons+of+Construction
I don’t mean to sound like a pedant, but this is important stuff.
“The Constitution is not suicide pact.”
Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1949