The 14th Amendment is not so clear
A Case against the 14 Amendment Broad Interpretation!
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
On the daily Caller Tucker Carlson lays out the reasons this not a clear slam dunk. He brings out two points. The originator never meant this was true for everyone. And he also brought a Harry Reed Speech in the nineties that also doesn’t support the 14th Amendment as it is used today.
Michael Anton on Tucker Carlson’s Show said Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard during debate of the 14th Amendment on May 30, 1866, in the Congressional Globe. Anton wrote that Howard “clarified that the amendment explicitly excludes from citizenship ‘persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.’
So appears that original intend was ignored by the case in 1898 by Supreme court. Below is an image of newspaper article The Congressional Globe where this subject was discussed by Senator Jacob Howard.
If you read further there where other excepts discussed. Certainly leaving the door open as not being absolute.
For today’s 14th Amendment
Below is someone with liberal blinders on that couldn’t wait to put his 2 cents in.
Amendment 14: all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. So, for FOX News viewers, please let me explain: a) people… https://t.co/9a77wecKzl
— Rob Westbrook (@RobBrno) October 31, 2018