Jim, IMO it is permissible to look at original intent.
Do we literally give people gun rights solely to have a militia? No.
We deem it the original intent that all citizens have access to gun ownership.
Was it the intent all children born on our soil be instant citizens? No.
They were trying to grant rights to a special class. We should recognize that and move on.
This has merely been interpreted incorrectly.
We should move back to the original intent.
The second doesn’t need a rewrite and neither does the 14th.
It just requires justices to review original intent and rule accordingly.
In my op-ed, I quoted another part of the debate, which my critics pass over in silence because it guts their argument. (I note here that the quote is actually from Senator Lyman Trumbull. I correctly attributed the quote in my draft but, for reasons I don’t know, the attribution was changed in editing.) Senator Trumbull says that “subject to the jurisdiction” means:
not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. [Emphasis added.]
Senator Trumbull does not say “Not owing allegiance to a foreign government for whom one serves as an ambassador or minister.” He plainly says “anybody else,” i.e., any foreign nation or tribe whatsoever. To hammer the point home, he continues: “and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” To be “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” is to owe allegiance to no other country or tribe.