It may or may not have changed them, depending on what you believe the rules were at the time the Constitution was ratified. But given that the rule was not expressly defined, and therefore left ambuguous at best, I think the 14th cleared up any ambiguity under a plain textual reading of the statute.
I've been practicing law for nearly 20 years, and am quite successful at it. I've argued cases based on interpretations of the common law, statutory law, and constitutional law at both the state and federal level. I'm a long-time member of the Federalist Society, and follow the same general textualist approach to construction as someone like Scalia, valuing the plain, ordinary meanings of words over unexpressed, ideosyncratic interpretations argued after the fact or that weren't clearly accepted among all ratifying agents. And I share in particular his mistrust of much of what is considered to be "legislative history."
Now, I certainly don't expect you to find any of that remotely convincing or impressive. I mean, why should you care about any of that? I mention it only to emphasize the reverse proposition -- why would you expect me to be even remotely convinced by you? You're making the exact kind of highly selective selective "legislative history" arguments I routinely laugh at when made by liberals trying to twist the text of the document. You don't like the textualist approach -- fine. But I'm hardly going to reverse my entire thinking about constitutional interpretation based on anything you've said, no matter whether or not it leads to a result I might otherwise prefer.
I didn’t even read your reply. I wouldn’t discuss the weather with you on a thread that has long since died. That amounts to a private exchange, which frankly I find creepy. If I wanted an IM session with you...well, suffice it to say I never would. Nor would I PM you for large sums of $. I pinged you originally to an active thread and anticipated a discussion THEN, not long after the thread turned into a ghost town. You’ve used this MO before, repeatedly. You get nasty and dishonest in a one-on-one, which is evidently why you prefer that type of exchange. Or, if you say, ‘I was too busy to respond sooner’; fine; you are too busy to discus the subject with me. Find someone else with whom to discuss it.
Here’s what you can do. Save your reply to me, and keep it handy. The next time there’s an ***active*** discussion of the NBC issue, I will plan to ping you. You can cut and paste your reply in then. If you do it while the thread is still lively, I promise to read every word. That is as fair as I can make it, and my last word on the subject. Take it or leave, whichever you prefer.