Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
again, I have no position. I'm just wondering. I'll put you down for "has no idea." GGG defaults to that, so that means your collective knowledge base is about equal to the detailed understanding of evolution you all brought to that question.
|
I think people are having 3 problems recognizing this as a serious question. First, it's the Tea Party line du jour, and so when you repeat it others (including me) immediately suspect you are just stirring up shit.
Second, if an issue is clear in the constitutional language ("all") and clear in the USSC precedent, it's unclear why anyone would care about the so-called legislative history, or even what that would entail with respect to an amendment (do we look at what each state legislature discussed before voting on the amendment?)
Third, it's very difficult for me to understand how the "history" could possibly support the interpretation that the Constitution was amended in order to make freed slaves citizens. That would have required only an act of Congress -- "all former slaves born in the US are hereby declared citizens." It's not like slavery was continuing after the 14th amendment, so why would there need to be an amendment?
