The wording could have been better, but the MEANING is clear. for instance, i do no think that wording was meant to allow innocent tourists from another country to be deprived of life without due process, or of unborn babies, say in the 8th month of pregnancy, EVEN IN THAT TIME PERIOD.
Your argument is the exact mirror image of the pro-abort argument.
Quite the contrary. I am arguing for original meaning. You are arguing against original meaning. You might want to read Scalia's book on federalism, wherein he makes a strong case against LETTERISM/"strict constructionism" and the original meaning.
yes, believe it or not, scalia argued AGAINST "strict constructionism", if what is meant is a wooden literal interpretation that ironically veered from the original MEANING.
Now, i don't remember how he APPLIED that, but i agree with the principle. It i on this point that the evidence demonstrates that YOU are the one who has veered into "judicial fiat" (wherein a judge's "preference" ironically is allowed to carry the day under your doctrine), and AWAY from orgininal meaning.
That is, good sir, how Roe v. Wade happened in the first place. Roe v. Wade is absolutely abhorrent constitutional law.
As i've already stated in posts to you and Hermann, you have it bass-ackwards. Roe v wade is abhorrent precisely BECAUSE the judges embraced a view of the 14th amendment similar to yours.
btw, Justice Blackmun was correct on one crucial point in that decision: if the unborn is a person, then that person is protected by the 14th amendment.
Unfortunately, Justice Blackmun made the mistake of defining the unborn as a non-person.
and, no, the word "born" in the 14th amendment was not MEANT to EXCLUDE unborn children in the original understanding as you might think. Rather "born" was want to draw distinctions between foreigners. Granted this wording had some severe problems, or "defects as you say, but that hardly means we should take the meaning that is most hostile to the unborn, ESPECIALLY since the original meaning was to protect any person from experiencing what the slaves experienced.
So, while you are correct that there are defects, the defects are not such that they would allow the very principle of protecting innocent life to be countervened.
BTW, abortion was outlawed in the several states in the 19th century solely as a public health measure--the procedure had a tendency to kill both the baby and the mother with 19th century medical technology. The argument was never about when life begins.
That seems an arbitrary argument. what makes you think that abortion was outlawed merely because it could threaten the health of the mother?
When the original meaning comes into conflict with those principles, the plain text is the final authority. The 14th Amendment is one such example.
No, it's not an example of denying a person the right to life. READ THE WHOLE AMENDMENT. (Also, the 5th amendment). See my above comments re original MEANING/Scalia.
You want the Constitution changed, then change it.
let's just interpret the amendments according to their original meaning. if you can't deny former slaves a right to life, liberty or property, then you sure cannot deny anyone else (like the unborn).
Change jurisprudence to suit your fashion at your own risk.
You're ignoring the original meaning of the amendments, by latching on to what you consider a loophole in the language that had nothing to do with aloowing abortion.
The meaning comes from the specific words used.
The words could've said what you wanted them to say, but they don't.
for instance, i do no think that wording was meant to allow innocent tourists from another country to be deprived of life without due process, or of unborn babies, say in the 8th month of pregnancy, EVEN IN THAT TIME PERIOD.
Sorry, you would be incorrect.
Foreigners legally present in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the state in which they are physically present.
Unborn persons are specifically outside the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment.
Quite the contrary. I am arguing for original meaning.
No, you are arguing for what you wish the original meaning was.
You are arguing against original meaning. You might want to read Scalia's book on federalism, wherein he makes a strong case against LETTERISM/"strict constructionism" and the original meaning.
Great. Scalia's a judicial activist? Hope he doesn't start getting loopy in his golden years, then.
yes, believe it or not, scalia argued AGAINST "strict constructionism", if what is meant is a wooden literal interpretation that ironically veered from the original MEANING.
One more time: the MEANING comes from the WORDS USED.
and, no, the word "born" in the 14th amendment was not MEANT to EXCLUDE unborn children in the original understanding as you might think. Rather "born" was want to draw distinctions between foreigners.
Unfortunately, that part of the record for the 14th Amendment's adoption is extremely weak. Specifically, abortion was, in several states of the Union, legal at that time. There was not one shred of discussion for or against protecting unborn children in the debate on the 14th.
That seems an arbitrary argument. what makes you think that abortion was outlawed merely because it could threaten the health of the mother?
The proceedings of the state legislatures at the time these laws were debated.
No, it's not an example of denying a person the right to life.
The Constitution is silent on when one becomes a person. Common law holds that being born is a prerequisite to becoming a person.