[Vicomte13]

Senator Howard's opinion is just that: his opinion.
It is not the 14th Amendment, and doesn't define what the 14th Amendment means. It means what it says, because that's what the states ratified. What he says he wanted it to mean is an interesting vignette in history. It is not binding authority.

[moehoward]

Interesting logic. The intent of the author is reduced to "his opinion".

Am I going out on a limb assuming you think some judge is better equipped to define the author's intent?

You don't have to answer that, I already have the answer.

[Carry_Okie]

It is not the 14th Amendment, and doesn't define what the 14th Amendment means. It means what it says, because that's what the states ratified. What he says he wanted it to mean is an interesting vignette in history. It is not binding authority.

The law is what it was when it took effect, else we have rubber laws that derive subjective meaning over time or even from one jurisdiction to the next. You may think that's the way it is, and I might agree that such is how the system operates, but it is not legitimate because any such change did not go through either amendment or ratification.

I take it you believe in a "living" Constitution.