[tacticalogic]

How are you going to determine their intent if you ignore the meanings of the words they put in the document?

Read their other writings and look at how they applied the law themselves after it was ratified.

Ignore people who try to tell me doing that is "ignoring the words".

That'show I'm going to do it. Are you going to do it at all?

[EternalVigilance]

Again, your questions are mooted by the overwhelming preponderance of our foundational principles, the stated purposes of the Constitution, all of them, and the express words of the Ninth Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Are babies people?

Is the right to life of innocents alienable, or unalienable?

[EternalVigilance]

Can you supply some proof that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, contrary to God's law, the natural law, the natural law principles of our nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence, every stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution, and the imperative requirement stated in the Fifth Amendment ("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"), (which they repeated in their Amendment), intended to exclude some persons, at certain stages of human development, or as defined by any other characteristics, from protection?

"No State shall deprive ANY person of life without due process of law; nor deny to ANY person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL protection of the laws."

Because I have never seen such. It certainly isn't in the Amendment itself, as my highlighted words above show.

"No" means no. "Any" means any. "Equal protection" means equal protection.

The burden is on you to prove that they would have in any way countenanced the alienation of the supreme right of more than fifty million innocent persons, so far.