The 1866 comment says nothing of the words of 14A. You choose a comment about a prior statute law because you prefer that to what was said about the words of 14A upon introduction of the Citizenship Clause. Which part are you not able to comprehend, “all persons born” or “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
That's your opinion which derives from *YOUR* premise that *ONLY* the black letter text matters.
I absolutely disagree, and my premise is that *ORIGINAL INTENT* (of the law makers and valid representatives of the people) is all that matters.
If that intent is not clear in the text, then any evidence from elsewhere which clarifies it is worthy of consideration.
Words are a poor means of conveying concepts. Unfortunately they are the only way we have of passing them on, but we should always understand it is the concept that is important, not the choice of words.
It is as a result of confusing choices of words that many people now see the Declaration of Independence as an anti-slavery document rather than an assertion of INDEPENDENCE as a right.
Which part are you not able to comprehend, “all persons born” or “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
I understand both quite well, but it seems almost the entire legal community has fallen into both the Asch conformity experiment and the Milgram "Authority" experiment type mass delusion. Some of us out here can think for ourselves and are not swayed by crowds or "authorities" who know less about the matter than do we.
The 14th amendment (not legally ratified) was intended to grant citizenship to freed slaves. (So that they might be used as an electoral weapon against the Democrats)
It was never intended to produce "anchor babies" for illegals.
Or Abortion, or banning prayer in schools, or homosexual "marriage."