[DiogenesLamp]

As a slavery amendment, this is not badly worded.

Except for the fact it doesn't mention "slaves" or "slavery", and therefore can be read by anal retentive courts to mean "everybody."

[ProgressingAmerica]

It can’t. The 1924 Snyder Act already exists to complicate such as your gobbledygook notion. Much less the debate notes explicitly stating intent that match align perfectly with the Snyder Act.