The repetition of statements made in the debate over XIV is basically irrelevant to what has to happen now.
There is no Article III court that will rule that what the writers of XIV MEANT to say should govern over what they DID say.
If you can be detained by the executive and brought before the judiciary to enforce laws made by the legislature, and subsequently can lose your property and be involuntarily removed to another country, then in the ordinary English meaning of “jurisdiction of the United States”, you are certainly subject to it.
So (and I have the greatest respect for Michael Anton), this is all mental masturbation.
If the GOAL is to end the foolish practice of birthright citizenship, the Constitution is going to have to be amended. I don’t see how else to get there from here.
Jim, IMO it is permissible to look at original intent.
Do we literally give people gun rights solely to have a militia? No.
We deem it the original intent that all citizens have access to gun ownership.
Was it the intent all children born on our soil be instant citizens? No.
They were trying to grant rights to a special class. We should recognize that and move on.
This has merely been interpreted incorrectly.
We should move back to the original intent.
The second doesn’t need a rewrite and neither does the 14th.
It just requires justices to review original intent and rule accordingly.
Exactly. When we interpret a law do we look at what the law as passed says, or do we rely on what Ted Kennedy might have said about it once in a floor debate?