[DiogenesLamp]

This is normal for a court. They are less concerned about what was proposed, and more concerned with what was passed. Courts resort to ‘legislative intent’ when they have no other options, because it is very hard to figure out years later why a majority voted for some wording. The debate is often more about scoring political points with constituents than it is with what passed, or why.

Your argument contradicts that of Justice Black in Duncan v Louisiana. I will further point out that he is SPECIFICALLY discussing the 14th amendment.

Professor Fairman's "history" relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.

[Mr Rogers]

“And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.”

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yeah. Harry Reid and Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and John McCain...all voting on principle! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!