Everyone that voted for it was led to believe it meant something very specific because they were told so by it's authors. Since you and your crowd are so influenced by the opinions of Judges, let me have Justice Black Explain it to you:
My appraisal of the legislative history followed 10 years of legislative experience as a Senator of the United States, not a bad way, I suspect, to learn the value of what is said in legislative debates, committee discussions, committee reports, and various other steps taken in the course of passage of bills, resolutions, [p165] and proposed constitutional amendments. ........ Professor Fairman's "history" relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.
Clear enough? When a bill is seemingly ambiguous, they look to what the authors TELL them it means. Unfortunately, the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not. I consider that incompetence or worse, malfeasance.
I am glad you have finally conceded that the 14th Amendment incorporated the jus soli doctrine into the US Constitution.
It does indeed, but it's usage in defining the word "citizen" does not result in it's equivalence to the term of art "natural born citizen." Not a single former slave could have been considered a "natural born citizen" because they did not gain their citizenship as a characteristic of their nature, but instead by the intervention of the 14th amendment. You cannot become a "natural citizen" retroactively.
The authors could have easily limited the application of the 14th amendment to your claimed purpose, with one sentence, but they did not do so. SCOTUS has only the language to apply to the facts of a specific case.
And what sentence would that be? They intentionally sought to avoid the mention of the word "Slave" or "Slavery", because they considered it Embarrassing to have acknowledged it was legal in the first place. Without mentioning the fact that the beneficiaries were specifically to be former slaves, or black, how would they have granted them citizenship and equal rights in one sentence? It is also noteworthy that Senator Howard was absolutely not going to allow Indians to be considered citizens under his proposal. (Read the Debates on the 14th amendment.) That Obstinacy sort of blows the whole theory doesn't it? Are they not also born within the boundaries? It wasn't until years later that congress granted them citizenship through statute, but it remains that they did not receive it by application of the 14th amendment.
Good luck with your project of overturning the 14th Amendment. I am a realist, so I wont hold my breath waiting for you taking your crusade from the internet to real life.
I intend to make no effort in overturning the 14th amendment. Rather, I would urge people to comprehend it's purpose, and demand that it be applied accurately. That effort would be easier if not for people like you who insist on obfuscating the truth by the massive addition of contrary noise.
Some reading on this issue from two prominent conservative scholars might help you better comprehend what is correct regarding the 14th amendment's intended purpose.
The language of the 14th Amendment is straight forward and not ambiguous and there is no need for legislative history to interpret the language. Your problem is not that the 14th Amendment is ambiguous, but rather that you do not agree with the language in the text of the document. The authors did not put any language in the text of the amendment regarding your so-called purpose. Instead the language is 180 degrees different and encompasses ‘all persons” with no limitation, rather just applying the amendment to slaves.
I can see from your comments that you do not agree with the majority opinion in the WKA case. I hope you realize that WKA has been favorable and approving cited in thousands of case in the past 113 years. It has never been questioned by a single court nor overruled. Every Circuit Court of Appeals in the past 113 years agrees with WKA’s definition of nbc and have used it in their rulings, none have used the Vattel theory or the Minor dicta in their rulings. The US Congress has incorporated the WKA definition into the United States Code.
Finally, Chief Justice William Howard Taft, and former Republican President, in 1927 called the WKA decision a “very learned and useful opinion.” I believe Taft, considered one of the greatest Chief Justices in the history of this country, has much more credibility in the Constitutional legal community than anyone you have named.
Has it ever occurred to you to ask why conservative, Constitutionalist lawyers constantly attack Obama (ie: Obamacare) yet have shown NO support for Vattel birthers? The reason for that is the discredited Vattel birther theory has ZERO legal merit.
Everyone outside of birther fantasyland agrees that the WKA decision holds that you are a nbc if born in the USA, no matter the citizenship of the parents. Yet not a single piece of legislation has been introduced to change that ruling and require the bogus Vattel theory as the definition of nbc. It is very common when someone disagrees with a SCOTUS decision that legislation is introduced to repeal or change the decision. This never happened with regard to the nbc issue. If you are trying to change people's mind on this issue, you obviously need to change your tactics. Maybe getting a single Congressman to agree with your birther theory could help.
BTW, the articles you give are about anchor babies, not NBC issues. You seem to love throwing out immaterial and irrelevant information to try to distract from your discredited theory.