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.
Slight correction, but a very important one: the meaning comes from the words as they are used IN CONTEXT. Words, in isolation have usage, while sentences convey meaning. but you can follow that more by reading Wittengstein, etc.
The words could've said what you wanted them to say, but they don't.
They most certianly do. The language clearly says any PERSON. The burden of proof to deny that the 5th and 14th amendments protect the unborn rests with the one who argues the baby is NOT a person.
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.
Woooah. Are you arguing that foreigners are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. while the unborn are not? You are contradicting your own reasoning. see, the reasoning you are using to disallow the unborn from the 14th amendment protections would also disallow foreigners the same protections (if you were correct), since the amendment specifies "citizens".
if "citizens" does not rule out "foreigners", then neither does "born" rule out "unborn".
Also, please do NOT forget the 5th amendment when you are reasoning through this. The 5th amendment is STILL applicable, and the 14th does not circumvent it.
No, you are arguing for what you wish the original meaning was.
No, that would be you. You wish the 5th and the 14th amendments did not refer to ANY person.
Great. Scalia's a judicial activist? Hope he doesn't start getting loopy in his golden years, then.
To the contrary. He understand what original meaning does, and does NOT mean. i highly recommend that book before you knock it. He debates that turd Larry tribe and others in the pages of that book.
One more time: the MEANING comes from the WORDS USED.
Again, Correction: words are defined in context. words don't have an inherent meaning. They could mean any number of things depending on the context, and literary device (hyperbole, metaphor, etc.) employed. For instance, the "bark" of a dog is not the "bark" of a tree.
Specifically, abortion was, in several states of the Union, legal at that time.
The fact that the federal government and the states tend to be inconsistent is hardly the fault of the unborn or my interpretation of the 5th and 14th amendments which is consistent with the principles and the original meaning.
There was not one shred of discussion for or against protecting unborn children in the debate on the 14th.
You mean that we know of? I'm sure they were preoccupied with the slavery issue. That hardly means the principles are not directly applicable to the unborn, any more than the fact that the internet was not on the mind of the framers while they drafted the "commerce among the states" clause. The principles are still PERFECTLY applicable.
The proceedings of the state legislatures at the time these laws were debated.
Are you claiming to have read all of them? Maybe you would like to link me to your sources and i'll be glad to review.