Nausi said: »
Constitutionalists argue that the intent of the law when it was written is what takes precedent.
Oh your so very confused. It's not the intent of the author but the intent of the signatories. In the case of the 2nd, the author just happened to also be one of the signatories and one of the primary architects of the USA, he was a founding father after all.
The author of the 14th on the other hand was not a founding father nor a major architect of the US Constitution. The 14th is read verbatim, no insert invisible words that make it agree with your world view. There is on language in the 14th that distinguishes lawful from unlawful presence in the US.
