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.
Probably just as much as Nancy Pelosi read her healthcare bill before voting to pass it. You intentionally misunderstand the point. The wording IS ambiguous. "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" is not defined in the text. (Isn't that one of YOUR arguments regarding the meaning of the term "natural born citizen"? My answer is the same to both questions. Read what they WROTE elsewhere!)
This is a Constitutional Amendment that is 1-2 pages in length !!! Just as I suspected, your mindset is that of a liberal.
And your LOGIC is that of a liberal. The fact that an Amendment is two pages long does not prove that my mindset is that of a liberal. That is what knowledgeable people refer to as a "non sequitur." I will point out the Amendments written by the Founders, (who were brilliant) were NOT 1-2 pages long. ("Brevity is the soul of wit.") Neither were their Amendments passed with dire threats and consequences to those states which did not vote for them, nor did their Amendments make such a horrid mess of the subsequent legal system.
The language of the 14th Amendment is straight forward and not ambiguous and there is no need for legislative history to interpret the language.
Apparently you didn't read either of the links I gave regarding George Will OR Ann Coulter. Yeah, the Amendment that Gave us ABORTION is not ambiguous on the point, eh? Why it should be obvious to anyone that the Congress and States voted to authorize Abortion in 1868 before they even gave women the right to vote! Yeah, it's not ambiguous at all!
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.
Yes they did. "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof". The problem is they didn't make it clearer as to what that meant, and the Judges refused to take into account of what they explained it to mean during the ratifying debate. Sort of the same problem that your type has with the "natural born citizen" clause.
Instead the language is 180 degrees different and encompasses ‘all persons” with no limitation, rather just applying the amendment to slaves.
Senator Howard would vehemently disagree with you, as would the rest of the Congress. It explicitly excludes INDIANS. That this is true is undeniable, And that fact alone blows your stupid theory to h3ll. Strangely enough, you seemingly cannot grasp this fact. You have a paradox whether you realize it or not. Indians are born within the borders of the United States, but were not citizens until the Indian citizenship act of 1924. They do not get the same treatment as other foreign nationals under the 14th amendment, and because of this inconsistency, this interpretation of the 14th amendment is simply wrong. (Or worse, ridiculous.)
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.
You may worship the god of "precedent" but I do not. I believe in "first principles" and regard reliance on precedent as a fallacy of methodology. That an entire body of people can be wrong has been demonstrated throughout history so many times it is no longer noteworthy to those who have studied History. Your mindset belongs in the time of a "flat earth", or a Geocentric society.
Amusingly enough, the courts provide the evidence of their foolishness by the facts of so many reversals in history. First we are to believe one thing... then after some judge says so, we are now expected to believe another. The truth did not change, only the opinions of Judges.
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.
And if the opinion of the exalted counted for more than that of those who are correct, we would have the Wisdom of the Pharisees in the bible, rather than Jesus. :)
All the world thought Sir Isaac Newton was correct until along came Einstein.
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?
Yeah, several years ago it made no sense. Now it does. Here is an elegant article that might explain it to those with the wit to comprehend it. I am showing it to you anyway.
The reason for that is the discredited Vattel birther theory has ZERO legal merit.
Saying it has no legal merit is not proof that it has no merit. Given that the legal system is such a screwed up mess nowadays, saying something has no "legal merit" is virtually a compliment. Too many things with "legal merit" are abominations against nature and civilization. It dissuades me not at all to discover that idiots disdain something. In fact, it encourages me all the more.
"Anchor babies" have legal merit. Enough said.