[philman_36]

Are you saying that the debate in Congress, provided in my link, on the adoption of the 14th Amendment is irrelevant?

[Phlyer]

Are you saying that . . . is irrelevant?

No. If it provides an analysis of the words as written that we find compelling, then it's very useful. However, if it just contains the opinion of individuals on what the 14th Amendment "should" mean, or what they "wanted" it to mean, then it's no more compelling than your private opinion, or mine.

Any argument . . . any argument where the point is who said something is ad hominem. What matters is what the words say, and what the simplest, most direct reading of the words mean.

Even then there will be room for interpretation, such as whether "under the jurisdiction thereof" includes fugitives from justice. But that interpretation question arises from the words themselves, not what someone wanted or intended them to mean - except to the point that the person makes a compelling case that what he 'wanted or intended' them to mean is the most straightforward interpretation of the words - and that applies regardless of who is making the case.

[Jim Noble]

Were my grandparents, born in New York or Connecticut to foreign nationals, subjects of the Emperor of Germany or Queen Victoria, citizens at birth or were they not?

[mlo]

"Are you saying that the debate in Congress, provided in my link, on the adoption of the 14th Amendment is irrelevant?"

It is irrelevant. A speech in Congress does not override the words written in the Constitution.