Replies

On a nincompoop would go back to the 1868 debates (and again, debates are not law.
This below is why I gave you the links.
(I never said debates were law, they merely help form laws)

But the language did not say that the 14th was limited to former slaves.
You can show me that in the debates?
(I even helped you out with a great link)

...it don’t (sic) say all former slave persons. It says ALL PERSONS.

The bill didn't need to say that because it is spoken about IN THE DEBATES! They ALL knew in Congress that the Amendment was about freed slaves. They didn't have to say it in the Amendment.
You need to go read the Congressional Record!

A query...
Why does the 14th specify in Section 2 - ...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. Not "fractions" of a person, the whole number of persons. Doesn't that mean that the former slaves, who only counted as “three-fifths” of a vote in the original Constitution were now counted as one vote and gives credence that the Amendment was for former slaves?

And another point...
Section 1, the Section you purport grants NBC on a person, is what I mean by the 14th applies only to slaves. (the citizenship aspect)
Other sections concern former Confderate military officers not holding public office.
Once again we see the environment in which the Amendment was passed.
The 14th was for a limited set of people and for a specific time in history and it wasn't meant to be used as a club for perpetuity...which is what the court did in Ark.

Criminy, dude.Read the case. And, it is stupid to presume that everybody in Congress meant former slaves when they said all persons. Guess what? The all persons language is discussed in Wong Kim Ark! Imagine that! What a wonderful case! It just keeps giving and giving!

Why don’t you just cut out your BS and get off this nonsense. You know you are wrong. I mean.look at yourself. Trying to convince a bunch of white people that all persons don’t mean all persons and flopping out a Congressional debate that took place over 30 years before the case trumps the case. Laughable!

And then your specious over reach statement. Ridiculous. The WKA Court presumed that the word all persons meant all persons. You are throwing out legal terms that you have no clue what they mean. You can not have any self respect if you do stuff like this.