In the old days, mid-1800's... newspapers would run transcripts of what happened in Congress. Not a lot of bias there, and not a lot of added junk either. I wish the papers would do that again.
Is CSPAN continually transcripted somewhere? It might be worth what it costs if it were. Then we could Google for bits.
What needs to be done is have a dollar figure connected with the Congressman who voted for a particular bill sent to voters. That way we can see how many millions they spend.
"Statements by the Court in the Coleman case that Congress was left in complete control of the mandatory process, and therefore it was a political affair for Congress to decide if an amendment had been ratified, does not square with Article V of the Constitution which shows no intention to leave Congress in charge of deciding whether there has been a ratification. Even a constitutionally recognized Congress is given but one volition in Article V, that is, to vote whether to propose and Amendment on its own initiative. The remaining steps by Congress are mandatory. Congress shall propose amendments; if the Legislatures of two- thirds of the States make application, Congress shall call a convention. For the Court to give Congress any power, beyond that to be found in Article V, is to write the new material into Article V. It would be inconceivable that the Congress of the United States could propose, compel submission to, and then give life to an invalid amendment by resolving that its effort had succeeded -- regardless of compliance with the positive provisions of Article V. It should need no further citations to sustain the proposition that neither the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment, nor its ratification by the required three-fourths of the States in the Union, were in compliance with the requirements of Article V of the Constitution. When the mandatory provisions of the Constitution are violated, the Constitution itself strikes with nullity the Act that did violence to its provisions. Thus, the Constitution strikes with nullity the purported 14th Amendment. The Courts, bound by oath to support the Constitution, should review all of the evidence herein submitted and measure the facts proving violations of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution with Article V, and finally render judgment declaring said purported Amendment never to have been adopted as required by the Constitution."
It seems to me that this can still be argued at a time when we need to nullify automatic citizenship for those born here from benefit-leaching parasites who've managed to break water on our side of the border. At the very least we should amend the Amendment to insure one parent holds legitimate citizenship.