It's not rooted in originalism or strict constuctionism. Modern conservatives to a big extent adhere to an interpretation of the 14th amendment that is profoundly liberal.
It is both wrong in that the authors of this amendment meant specific things by the language they used, (what is the usefulness of having laws if they don't mean what they say they mean?) and wrong in allowing the usurpation of America's sovereignty in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with giving freed slaves citizenship.
“It’s not rooted in originalism or strict constuctionism...It is both wrong in that the authors of this amendment meant specific things by the language they used”
I disagree. The words are pretty simple, and pretty obviously mean what precedent has come to believe they mean, notwithstanding the supposed intent. Yes, the intent was to grant citizenship to slave. But the way it’s written, it applies to “anchor babies,” whether or not that’s what they wanted.
By the way, when intent knocks up against language, language controls (according to what the language meant when the article was adopted, of course).