The opponents of the Amendment, during the Senate ratification hearings, argued that the citizenship clause would be interpreted exactly as it has been since the mid 1960s. The authors defended against that claim by explaining that “subject to the jurisdiction” means “not subject to anyone else’s jurisdiction,” “having exclusive jurisdiction.” The Senate ratified the Amendment only because the Senate was convinced that the citizenship clause was not a general grant of citizenship to the children of most aliens / foreigners born in the United States. The states then ratified it based on that same understanding.
So if your stance is that original intent is the only correct interpretative paradigm—as most libertarians do in general, and as Judge Napolitano does in particular—then he’s going against his own principles here.
bump