Birthright citizenship is not even remotely ambiguous in the Constitution.

The fact that suddenly conservatives are so obsessed with its drafters' "intent" being different from its plain language is proof textualism and originalism were always bad faith vehicles.

@theleftistlawyer Any questions about the 14th Amendment was settled in 1898 with Wong Kim Ark. The KKK has waited 128 years to court shop for the next KKK SCOTUS.

@theleftistlawyer

every time i hear originalists word playing the constitution and claiming to know what the founding fathers "meant", what i hear underneath is this, from alice in wonderland:

`Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.

`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'

@theleftistlawyer "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."

Regarding that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" my guess is this was intended to exclude American Indians, who would have been considered belonging to their own nations but not the US at that point. What's your take?

Anyway.... it seems like every US-born child of immigrants has now a motive to get a speeding ticket, just to prove they're subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

@theleftistlawyer Also, we know their intent. From Washington's letter to the Touro Synagogue in Newport, which seems *pretty pro-birthright-citizenship*:
"For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
(He's lying on 'gives...persecution no assistance' but that's not the point)
@theleftistlawyer Which we already knew, and they (having argued in bad faith for decades) are already completely comfortable with.
@theleftistlawyer I mean the originalism/textual argument for the second amendment goes against everyone having guns just because, too. They just use it when it’s convenient and to stop progress.
@theleftistlawyer There was a time when the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments were viewed as plain and unquestionable, but thanks to rogue SCOTUS decisions from activist judges, we find ourselves miles away from the obvious meanings of all those.
@theleftistlawyer Wasn’t that already painfully obvious from the 2nd amt shenanigans?