Most of the time when people publicly debate “textualism” vs. “intentionalism” it smacks to me of a bunch of sophistry to achieve the policy objectives of the textualist. Even if you tried to interpret English statements like computer code, which seems like a really poor way to govern, the argument that gets put forth by the guy who wants to extend the interstate commerce clause to growing weed or whatever is almost always ridiculous on its own merits.
The 14th amendment debate is unique, though, in that the letter of the amendment goes one way, and the stated interpretation of the guy who authored the amendment actually does seem to go the exact opposite way. The amendment reads:
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
Which is pretty airtight. Virtually everyone inside the borders of the United States is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, certainly people here on visa, with the possible exception of people with diplomatic immunity. And yet:
I don’t see how they’re “the exact opposite way”. The usual rules of English grammar make this a statement that those those who are born in the United State but belong to families of accredited diplomatic personnel are foreigners, i.e. aliens.
Perhaps you read the statement disjunctively as “foreigners, [or] aliens, [or those] who belong [...]”? That would require inserting extra words to maintain correct grammatical structure, and also be a circular reference since the statement is intended to define those who are considered citizens and those who are considered non-citizens (i.e. foreigners, aliens).
Most of the time when people publicly debate “textualism” vs. “intentionalism” it smacks to me of a bunch of sophistry to achieve the policy objectives of the textualist. Even if you tried to interpret English statements like computer code, which seems like a really poor way to govern, the argument that gets put forth by the guy who wants to extend the interstate commerce clause to growing weed or whatever is almost always ridiculous on its own merits.
The 14th amendment debate is unique, though, in that the letter of the amendment goes one way, and the stated interpretation of the guy who authored the amendment actually does seem to go the exact opposite way. The amendment reads:
Which is pretty airtight. Virtually everyone inside the borders of the United States is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, certainly people here on visa, with the possible exception of people with diplomatic immunity. And yet:
So it seems like in this case the textualism vs. intentionalism debate is actually possibly important.
I don’t see how they’re “the exact opposite way”. The usual rules of English grammar make this a statement that those those who are born in the United State but belong to families of accredited diplomatic personnel are foreigners, i.e. aliens.
Perhaps you read the statement disjunctively as “foreigners, [or] aliens, [or those] who belong [...]”? That would require inserting extra words to maintain correct grammatical structure, and also be a circular reference since the statement is intended to define those who are considered citizens and those who are considered non-citizens (i.e. foreigners, aliens).