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.

▲

sanderjd 2 days ago | parent [-]

This is not the only "proper approach" and what approach is proper is a hotly contested question.

But it doesn't even matter, because in this case it is very clear what the drafters intended.

▲

rayiner 2 days ago | parent [-]

It’s not seriously contested anymore. Originalism won and now we are just fighting about how to apply it.

▲

sanderjd 2 days ago | parent [-]

This is obviously not true. Everyone always wants to say "my ideology is right and this is not contested anymore" and everyone is always wrong about that.

	▲	TimorousBestie 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Insofar as originalism did “win,” it was only as a convenient signal to Mitch Mcconnell that a potential appointee would play ball. As an academic legal theory it’s entirely sterile. There’s little actual content within it and it demonstrates almost no consistent application of its supposed principles. When it ceases to deliver conservatives relatively painless victories, they’ll move on to something else.