What you aren't grasping is that it does not specifically say that. If you read *THE WORDS* it doesn't apply to just black slaves. It applies to *everyone* except Indians.
The anal retentive people in the legal community believe a law has to be interpreted strictly by the words. No mulligans allowed for saying "that's not what we meant!"
The court's position is *Say what you mean*, because we will interpret it according to what you said.
This wouldn't have happened if the Southern states had been allowed to vote on it.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
Many babies of PRC moms never reside in any state. Mere popping out in the USA is insufficient.
The “and” is important. It means that the clause is merely retroactive as of the date of ratification.
born - past tense
naturalized - past tense
are - present (time of ratification [1868]) tense
******
Shall is normally used in the Constitution for the future tense.
Amendment X uses “are reserved”.
Reserve means “to keep back or save for future or special use”
The citizenship clause is at most a one-time (1868) grant.
******
The fact that the writers didn’t use the oft used Constitutional word “shall” matters. It was the obvious choice. It also would have accomplished what they undoubtedly intended.
******
Also consider the citizenship of babies born in the USA with parents having citizenship from the country of India.
The babies can get Indian citizenship upon application, but they are not born with it.
Why does India have such a system? Probably so that babies of citizens of India don’t run afoul of the complete jurisdiction requirement.
******
“If birth in the US alone would constitute US citizenship (particularly following Wong Kim Ark of 1898), then there would have been no need for the Indian Citizenship Act (Snyder Act) of 1924.”
It would be silly to say that a baby of Mexican Apaches if popped out in hospital room in El Paso would be an American citizen under Amendment XIV but a baby of American Apaches if popped out in the adjoining hospital room would not.
Ok. We’ve been here before. I’m moving on.
Just pointing out, this is the originalist position. We all know because the authors were blindingly clear. As a slavery amendment, this is not badly worded.
As a Santa Claus amendment though, that is when it becomes badly worded. Which you agree with, BTW. You believe the 14th is the Santa Claus amendment.