[Scotsman will be Free]

You should do a little work on your condescending attitude. It would be an opportunity for you to learn how to debate.
Go ahead and hold onto your interpretation, and forget about the clear meaning of words, and the additionally clear meaning of words in the context in which they are used.
SCOTUS reasons as you do, and comes up with all sorts of wonderful decisions based on word twisting, and claiming that yes means no, and no means yes.

[Waryone]

For forty years after the Amendment was written SCOTUS did reason exactly as I’ve mentioned. This is not my interpretation. It is the history of the Amendment. You refuse to understand it to your detriment.

This is for anyone who would actually like to learn something:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm18.cfm

These are the pages int the book by Edwin Meese I mentioned earlier pages 384 and 385:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-_8N3UeXeesC&pg=PA384&lpg=PA384&dq=senator+trumbull+%22subject+to+the+jurisdiction%22&source=web&ots=kX_x0C4KTS&sig=iv3RZT5_5qjrNxgcdPeKEtSFdQ0#PPA385,M1

You can debate yourself if you wish. I prefer to research and understand the truth.

[wideawake]

There seems to be a real propensity for some on this thread to redefine common words like "jurisdiction" and "amnesty" to fit an emotionalized ideology that doesn't square with dictionary definitions, legal definitions, historical usage or common sense.

I applaud your patience.