@Chughes612 Sure people say it. Doesn’t mean it applies here. If you’re only willing to note the races of the accused and the victim and the words used when making a defense and not the reasonableness of persons actions given the circumstances your self def cases will keep failing in court.
Yes, John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, it is just “revisionism” to claim that the understanding of the 14th Amendment’s use of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant something other than; as you put it, “the power of the United States to govern those within its territory.”
So I guess Thomas J Cooley, namesake of Michigan’s School of Law, when writing his textbook “Principles of Constitutional Law” in 1880 and as revised in this 1891 edition, was engaged in revisionist history?
He was announcing a made up, revisionist understanding of the 14th Amendment, and not capturing the public or even legal understanding of that phrase?
M’kay.
@ryanb1188@Noahpinion Its language was also written by only northern representatives and senators before the south states had been admitted back to the union. I feel that had some influence on its lack of a better protection against misinterpretation despite its sponsor in the senate’s stated purpose
@ryanb1188@Noahpinion We still have the right to change the text. People are realizing how the costal elite put their thumbs on the scale by intentionally importing the third world and treating them as a privileged class. Thats why people are reevaluating the conventional interpretation.