[VADoc1980]

Let's make something clear, patlin. It doesn't matter what the framers of the 14th amendment's intentions were. It only matters what the amendment says, in plain English, because that's how SCOTUS interpreted it in later cases (like Wong Kim Ark). If the framers of the 14th amendment had said in the legislative history that they didn't mean for this to apply to Chinese people, would you support excluding people of Chinese descent from automatic citizenship at birth here?

Perhaps if these gentlemen you reference didn't want the 14th amendment to apply to everyone born here, they should have MENTIONED IT IN THE AMENDMENT. I'm looking at my pocket copy of the Constitution and I don't see anything in the 14th amendment about allegiance to any foreign sovereignty or excluded by operation children of ministers, consuls, etc. If it ain't in there, it doesn't matter.

[patlin]

Let's make something clear, patlin. It doesn't matter what the framers of the 14th amendment's intentions were...

What an arrogant idiot. Intent has EVERYTHING to do with interpretation. As far as the Chinese, take that up with China & the US Govt who signed the agreement disallowing US citizenship to the Chinese & their offspring born in the US and I might add, that the US Congress agreed to.

Justice Joseph Story (1833) Rules of Constitutional Interpretation

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_rules_of_constitutional_interpretation.htm

§ 181. I. The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.

[Tublecane]

“It doesn’t matter what the framers of the 14th amendment’s intentions were. It only matters what the amendment says, in plain English”

Bingo!

I can only assume the framers of the 16th and 17th amendments intended them to destroy federalism and establish Empire America. But I don’t read them that way, because they each say distinct and particular things.