| ▲ | rootusrootus 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In that case, the use of the word jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment is meaningless, too ambiguous to rely on. Unless we think the Constitution should be living, breathing, and adapt to the current political environment. Is that the current conservative viewpoint? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | zamadatix 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Not all originalists will hold the same views on how to deal with ambiguity in the same way not all on the living constitution side agree how ambiguity should be resolved. The takes are usually more on the "how to think about resolving the meaning" side than a "is there any meaning to resolve" side. That said, the originalist viewpoint is usually more along the lines of "we should seek to resolve that ambiguity in context of when, why, and with which references the framers who wrote it had in mind". Most originalists are unlikely to care what an argument about the current political environment implies. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | rayiner 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Well, a word can have different meanings in different contexts but still have a clear meanings in each particular context. But I agree that “jurisdiction” doesn’t have a well defined meaning in the context of individuals being subject to the jurisdiction of a nation. In that case, the proper approach is to look at other evidence of what the drafters meant, which is what both the majority and dissents did. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||