My reader continues the conversation concerning the 14th Amendment:
My reaction was only to what you wrote and quoted; I haven’t researched the issue closely. I do think the meaning of legal words does drift with time; how could it not? See arguments about the second amendment as a for-instance, although there’s a difference between legalese, the language of the amendments and the language of legislation, if one really wants to split hairs. I only know enough linguistics to be dangerous. :-)
Yes, words do drift in meaning; but I continue to believe it’s dangerous if legal jargon drifts in meaning.
Back to the main point of this thread, which was an article by Michael Anton claiming the purpose of the 14th Amendment was not to provide birthright citizenship, later rebutted by Elizabeth Wydra (same link as above), I have noted one or two more rebuttal articles in WaPo since, at least one of which suggested Anton actually misquoted Senator part of the debate to bolster Anton’s position. While I have no expertise in the area, it does appear Anton’s intellectual reputation is in tatters.
