The Federalist Blog has this interesting article on the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's naturalization clause. Kind of a rehashing of other articles on the internet, but a good primer on the basic rationale against birthright citizenship.
The recounting of the ratification debate and the articulation of the very meaning of the naturalization clause, specifically the "subject to the jurisdiction of" clause, made me remember James Ho's article (writing the "con" side to John Eastman), in which he said that "no one disputed the amendment's meaning." If that is right, then apparently he is simply on the wrong side of the argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I read both Eastman and Ho's counter arguments on the fourteenth amendment citizenship meaning. I've always leaned towards Ho's line of argument, but this P.A. Madison fellow makes too strong of a case against James Ho's conclusion. I'd have to say Madison's assertions are most supportive of the textual language, and clearly the legislative meaning given to this language.
ReplyDelete