|
|
|
|
|
by eesmith
484 days ago
|
|
VOIPThrowaway's comment was all about the intent behind the amendment. Part of the intent may have been to "make sure Democrats couldn't say that former slaves weren't citizens" but the legislative history clearly shows that wasn't the only reason. How else would you demonstrate what their intent was, if citing primary evidence is off-limits? I'm arguing it's not a loophole because that's how US law works, and has worked for not just the last 250 years, but in the common law that we inherited from England. I provided citation to show that legal history, so you can double-check me. If you don't like the way the law works, well, use the 18th-century logic embedded in the Constitution to repeal the amendment, like how the 21st repealed the 18th. Make new state and federal laws to invalidate the relevant common law, which would still exist after the repeal. Don't just make up interpretations because you don't like reality. |
|