ok you admit NOT originalist
-fJRoberts-
ok you admit NOT originalist
Original what? The terms original intent and original meaning have both been used.
Original intent of the drafter has no relevance in constitutional construction. Even if the intent of the majority of the Framers could be ascertained, their words were ratified by the people, not their intent.
Assume hypothetically Congress proposes an Amendment limiting immigration to four thousand immigrants per year. The people ratify. Then Congress claims (or proves beyond a doubt) that their intent was four million a year. Does that change what the people ratified to four million a year?
The intent of the 14A citizenship clause was debated at some length in the Senate.
"All persons" has a clear meaning and excludes nobody. "Born in the United States" has a clear meaning. "Subject to the jurisdiction" has a clear meaning, subject to our laws. Holding aliens are not subject to our laws would mean they could be prosecuted for any crime whatever.
I have never before encountered the term original meaning. It seems to infer the Living Constitution where the meaning of the Constitution morphs with the times. I disagree with a morphing Constitution if that is what the term refers to. The meaning of the Constitution continues with the meaning given to it by the ratifiers. Following generations can amend a provision, but a social change does not effect an amendment. I do not favor "amending" the Constitution by finding penumbras formed by emanations coming from guarantees.