[DiogenesLamp]

So the 14th Amendment, excluding the political process section, isn't wordy.

My point wasn't that it was excessively wordy. (It is.) My point was that the words they chose were worse than the words they previously chose.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 completely clears up any misunderstanding that is inherent in the 14th.

My complaint isn't that they used too many words (which they did) but that they used the *WRONG WORDS*, which made it so subject to the abuse it has accumulated from Federal Judges.

"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, "

Is *WAY* clearer than "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

[Tell It Right]

My point isn't that the 14th's Section 1 doesn't have enough words. My point is that it has just enough words we'd expect, but the CRA of 1866 has too many words (not for my tastes, but what we would expect compared to earlier amendments).

If the 14th Amend Sec 1 was written for my tastes, I'd prefer it to look more like the 1866 CRA. Likewise if it was written in today's time in which every jot and tittle is challenged or stretched routinely by the left. But I'm not going to today criticize the 19th century writer (John Bingham) for using the normal amount of words for his time for 14th Am Sec 1.