The 14th and how it became what it is today ​By The Tradesman Pt.2

[M]

Source: http://14thamendment.harpweek.com/HubPages/CommentaryPage.asp?Comme...

Secondary explanation of the background for the 14th Amendment;
Highlighted/Bold Italicised areas added by the Tradesman.


Congressional Passage // Freedmen's Bureau Act // Race Riots
Early State Ratification // Congressional Elections // Southern Rejection
Congressional Reconstruction


The Civil Rights Act became law on April 9, 1866, but other issues remained unsettled.  At that point, the proposed constitutional amendment ensuring federal civil rights had been tabled in both chambers of Congress; the proposed constitutional amendment on apportionment of federal representation had received a two-thirds majority in the House, but failed to gain the same in the Senate; resolutions to disfranchise former Confederates and prohibit them from holding public office had been referred to the Joint Committee on Reconstruction; and the proposed constitutional amendment protecting the national debt and rejecting Confederate debt had passed the House with a two-thirds majority, but had not been considered in the Senate. 
At a meeting of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction on April 21, 1866, Congressman Thaddeus Stevens introduced a plan for combining the various proposals into one amendment.  It comprised a section dealing with each of the four topics for which resolutions had been submitted previously, along with a fifth section to allow Congress to enforce the constitutional amendment with “appropriate legislation.”  Section Five was based on the enforcement clause of the Thirteenth Amendment.  A week later, after discussion and changes were made, the committee endorsed the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, 12-3, and ordered it reported to Congress.  On April 30, it was introduced into the Senate by Senator William Fessenden, chairman of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, and into the House by Congressman Stevens, ranking House member of the committee.  The House began debating the Fourteenth Amendment on May 8.   
The initial version of Section Three, which disfranchised and prohibited former Confederates from holding public office, proved to be the most controversial in the House, including with mainstream Republicans.  Congressman James Blaine feared that if the amendment overrode the President’s pardons, then the federal government would be open to the charge of making promises in bad faith.  Congressman John Bingham, author of Section One, worried that opposition to Section Three might torpedo passage of the entire amendment.  Congressmen Stevens insisted, however, that Section Three was the most important part of the proposed amendment because it was necessary to keep the Southern state governments in loyal hands during Reconstruction.   
Section Four, securing the national debt and prohibiting assumption of Confederate debt, was so generally agreeable that it provoked little comment and only token opposition from Border State congressman complaining about the ban on compensation to former slaveowners. 
The House passed the Fourteenth Amendment on May 10 by more than the required two-thirds majority, 128-37, sparking applause in the House galleries as well as on the floor.  The five negative Republican votes were congressmen from the Border States of Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia.  Although most supporters and opponents agreed that Section One incorporated the substance of the Civil Rights Act into the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment as initially passed by the House did not include a clause defining national citizenship.  House participants may have assumed that the citizenship clause in the Civil Rights Act was sufficient to affirm that blacks were citizens. 

[Tradesman's NOTE: The Civil Rights Act (1866) is the act indicated and it was passed by Congress on 9th April 1866 Source;http://spartacus-educational.com/USAcivil1866.htm ]

Debate on the proposed Fourteenth Amendment opened in the Senate on May 23.  Because Senator Fessenden was absent due to illness, Senator Jacob Howard represented the Joint Committee on Reconstruction by opening the debate and steering the Fourteenth Amendment through the Senate.  On May 29, Howard moved to amend Section One by adding a citizenship clause to read, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”  In addition, the Senate Republican Caucus decided to strike the disfranchisement clause from Section Three, and Senator Howard presented a substitute with that omission, which was approved by the full Senate, 32-10, on May 31. 
Senate opponents unsuccessfully attempted to thwart passage of the Fourteenth Amendment by dividing it once again into separate amendments.  On June 8, the Senatepassed the Fourteenth Amendment by a two-thirds majority of those present, 33-11 (five senators were absent and one seat was vacant).  On June 13, the House approved the Senate’s version of the Fourteenth Amendment (with the citizenship clause and without the disfranchisement clause), 120-32, with all Republican voting in the affirmative.  The June 30, 1866 issue of Harper’s Weekly (published June 20)reported Congressman Stevens’s displeasure with the Senate version, which removed the disfranchisement clause.  Although accepting it as the best that could be accomplished at that time, he predicted the necessity of the federal government securing voting rights for black men (which later would be embodied in the Fifteenth Amendment).   
On June 16, 1866, the proposed Fourteenth Amendment was presented to Secretary of State William Henry Seward, who then submitted it to the states for ratification or rejection.  When Congress received notification from President Johnson on June 22 of the secretary’s action, the chief executive made it clear that he had not approved the proposed constitutional amendment.  Harper’s Weekly editor Curtis reacted in the July 7 issue (published June 27), expressing regret for the president’s disapproval and disagreeing with Johnson’s contention that the Fourteenth Amendment did not represent public sentiment.  The editor explained that presidents are not directly involved in the process of amending the constitution.  (Curtis mentioned the exception of Lincoln signing of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery.  The editor was apparently unaware that in March 1861, a day before leaving office, President James Buchanan had signed the original pro-slavery Thirteenth Amendment, which was subsequently not ratified by the states.  For more information, visit HarpWeek’s Thirteenth Amendment website.)



Harper's Weekly References
1)  May 26, 1866, p. 323, c. 4
“Domestic Intelligence” column
2)  June 16, 1866, p. 371, c. 4
“Domestic Intelligence” column
3)  June 23, 1866, p. 387, c. 3
“Domestic Intelligence” column
4)  June 30, 1866, p. 403, c. 4
“Domestic Intelligence” column
5)  July 7, 1866, p. 419, c. 4
“Domestic Intelligence” column
6)  July 7, 1866, p. 418, c. 4 to p. 419, c. 1
editorial, “The President and the Amendment”





Congressional Passage // Freedmen's Bureau Act // Race Riots
Early State Ratification // Congressional Elections // Southern Rejection
Congressional Reconstruction

When considering the above information, it looks like the Supreme Court has deliberately fixated on the words "Born in" instead of considering it in the context and general consensus of opinion of the time frame it was created in and the purpose it was intended for by it's creators.

Cornell Law has this to say;

1. U.S. Constitution > 
2. 14th Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens.  The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is  "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education(racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights),  Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed(gender discrimination),  and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education).  See more...
Amendment XIVSection 1.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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
wex resourcesSection 1.Privileges and Immunities Clause
Civil Rights
Slaughterhouse Cases
Due Process 
Substantive Due Process
Right of Privacy: Personal Autonomy
Territorial Jurisdiction
Equal Protection
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Plyer v. Doe (1982)
Section 4.Debt
Section 5.Enforcement Power 
Commerce Clause 


To me, this shows the total disregard by SCOTUS of the 14th's real purpose, and a linchpin for Legislating from the bench. This information goes far beyond the "No State Shall" caveat. the 14th MUST be Repealed to return to the Republic we were intended to be. The other amendments protect the basic rights without the propensity of misuse by SCOTUS or Congress in the Constitutional Law Domain.However with the Repeal there must be a simplified replacement amendment that protects American Citizenship without stripping the rightful power of government from the people and the states.
Equal Protection of the Laws In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the Constitution was amended to abolish slavery, establish civil equality, and guarantee all men the right to vote. Ratified on July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” thereby granting citizenship to former slaves.(A) It also stated that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”(B)
With language echoing the Declaration of Independence, all Americans were not only created equal but were to be treated equally before the law. Racism, segregation, and disenfranchisement limited the effect of the 14th Amendment until the 1960s (C) and beyond. Yet, over time its impact has been deep and widespread. It has been cited by those on both sides of contentious social issues ranging from abortion to marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

Source; http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.... 

Codex;
(A) The original intent of the 14th Amendment was specifically directed to the Freed Slaves. 

 In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

This explanation from the period when the 14th was added is what SCOTUS has consistently ignored in all of it's expanding Rulings.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.  By overturning this portion with the Anchor Baby ruling SCOTUS defied the Constitutions Separation of powers and Legislated from the bench doing the same with every subsequent ruling to date.
(B) This section about Due Process and Equality Did nothing to stop the Jim Crow laws on Poll Taxes Literacy tests etc. This section has been supplanted by the various Civil Rights acts which cover more equality ground in specific detail.
(C)  This section specifically shows that American Citizens were to be treated Equally under the Law by Equal Application of the Law. Then SCOTUS technically by remaining silent on the issue endorses SOCIAL JUSTICE as superior to EQUAL JUSTICE.. That stance defeats the concept of EQUAL APPLICATION of the LAW.

My Friend and Mentor, Mangus Colorado had this to say about the 14th;  
"The 14th was poorly written on purpose IMHO, the North wanted to punish the South. They also wanted the South to be ruled by the Federal Government and not the limited power of the Federal government as in a Republic. So. they made the 14th appear to be freeing the Slaves and protecting their right to vote. No State Shall is the State killer as the courts have used it to force States to be controlled by Superior Federal laws?"


​Therefore: In my considered opinion the existing 14th Amendment must be completely Repealed and replaced with a streamlined amendment that grants Citizenship to babies of American Citizens of two (2) parents for natural born status and (1) American Citizen parent for basic citizenship. It would also have to specify voting rights for Citizens only, W/Official ID supplied for free, for every Legal Citizen to vote. Concerning that vote, mandate 3 Electors for every State regardless of size or population with the highest vote getting two (2) electoral votes, and the Second highest getting one (1) electoral vote. Unless the high vote getter gets 3/4 or more of the vote, then that person gets all three electoral votes.  Doing that preserves the Electoral College and the will of the people to choose.

​The Tradesman