[LachlanMinnesota]

Plain language of the 14th Amendment, but only some of the plain language, and excluding some of it to suit one’s notion.

“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

If all words are there for a reason, and all words have meaning, what is the meaning of this phrase?

Does the intent of the drafter matter?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Does the intent of the drafter matter?

Yes.

[Dr. Sivana]

Does the intent of the drafter matter?

It matters, but by itself it is not determinative. The plain language is primary. Understanding of the people who voted for it would also play a part. Of course, who knows what SCOTUS would do with ANY of this? I believe that the plain language confers citizenship. Current law definitely confers citizenship.

I do agree with Trump that there should be a test case going to the Supreme Court. Perhaps legislation fleshing out what "subject to the juridiiction of" means would be a way to lower the threshold.

Cruz, Walker, Jindal etc. do NOT have the luxury that Trump has of speaking loosely and then clarifying later. When any of the other candidates, including John ELlis Bush, says something that can be used to portray him in a bad light rightly or wrongly, a subsequent clarification is either ignored or used to paint said person as a flip-flopper. Itis best to avoid the dangerous sound bite for that reason, unless, like Trump, you can buy or command coverage of the follow-up on your terms.

I don't blame Trump from using his strengths. I don't balme Cruz and the others for avoiding traps.