Great idea, lets set all policy on poems written in the late 1800s.
The right on the Second Amendment: "The words mean exactly what they say! The language about a militia and the context of the adoption of the Amendment are irrelevant!"
The right on the 14th Amendment: "You have to look at what was going on at the time and change the meaning of the words now because they don't mean what they say."
WTF does the poem inscribed on the base of the SOL have to do with the constitution?
I started the post thinking I'd draw a contrast between how you 1) rely zealously on words that are 250 years old and demand that they be adhered to without regard to context when it suits you, but 2) ignore the principle of what was written 150 years ago because its "too old."
But figured it would confuse you.
That's my rub with it, but I'm no expert. I don't know if I believe something that was created as to protect rights for those born in this country was meant to extend to those who were born here illegally. You are correct though as the SCOTUS hasn't ruled to make that distinction.I don't believe the verbiage of the 14th qualifies that, so yes IMO - it'd apply until the SCOTUS says it doesn't.