[Penelope Dreadful]

“Are you going to tell me that the debates didn’t SHAPE the Amendment?”

No, debates almost always shape laws. And then the laws are written and passed. And the laws are written in these thingies called, “words.” And words have meanings, like “all persons.” Which is how the 14th was passed. ALL PERSONS.

Do you think the 14th Amendment had an ending date? If so, why was that not mentioned in the Amendment?

[philman_36]

You’re so full of >poop emoji< I don’t even have to ask to know that your eyes are brown!

[philman_36]

And let's get the other half here...
...I was just curious what you thought about them,
and their invention of Imaginary Laws, or Pseudolaw.
It doesn't seem that way to me. It sounds rather
condescending to me instead of curiosity and you never
came out and asked me directly that I recall.

Rhetorical questions will get you nothing.

[philman_36]

No, debates almost always shape laws. And then the laws are written and passed. And the laws are written in these thingies called, “words.” And words have meanings, like “all persons.”

Here's some words for you...
Amdt14.S1.1.1.1 Citizenship Clause: Historical Background

The citizenship provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment may be seen as a repudiation of one of the more politically divisive cases of the nineteenth century. Under common law, free persons born within a state or nation were citizens thereof. In the Dred Scott case,1 however, Chief Justice Taney, writing for the Court, ruled that this rule did not apply to freed slaves. The Court held that United States citizenship was enjoyed by only two classes of people: (1) white persons born in the United States as descendants of "persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, [and who] became also citizens of this new political body," the United States of America, and (2) those who, having been "born outside the dominions of the United States," had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein.2 Freed slaves fell into neither of these categories.

The Court further held, although a state could confer state citizenship upon whomever it chose, it could not make the recipient of such status
[[that status being the freed slaves with no "category"]]
a citizen of the United States. Even a free man descended from a former slave residing as a free man in one of the states at the date of ratification of the Constitution was held ineligible for citizenship.3 Congress subsequently repudiated this concept of citizenship, first in section 14 of the Civil Rights Act of 18665 and then in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, Congress set aside the Dred Scott holding, and restored the traditional precepts of citizenship by birth.6

"All persons" are the people who fit into that "category".

And look (footnote 6) what is considered the "traditional" precepts of citizenship by birth...
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898)

How interesting.
1857 Dred
1868 14th
1898 WKA

How can you restore a tradition that doesn't exist yet?