Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch
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?
|
I do know enough about the history to know the amendment backed up an act of congress, since congress wasn't sure "only an act of congress" was required.
