re: I asked Grok to make an argument against birth right citizenship

quote:

---

Birth right citizenship is part of the constitution whether you like it or not

---

Only if you interpret the 14th differently than the people who wrote it. It's like telling a songwriter that his lyrics don't mean what he says they mean.

And this shows the inherent contradiction in being a textualist. People will say the Constitution isn't a living document and what's written is what's written, but that is refusing to admit that language evolves. Words change meaning.

By refusing to use the additional context of the writers and instead interpreting only the written text through your modern perspective, textualists are in fact changing the Constitution.

If you don't think so, just look at the phrase "under the jurisdiction of." The meaning was so obvious to the people of the time that no more needed to be said. And we know what they meant because they told us. But now we have modern people debating the meaning of that phrase. If language didn't evolve, we wouldn't be debating what the past considered common knowledge.

If you refuse to consider additional context, you are no better than the left who wants to claim that 'militia' only means the national guard.

It's absurd to think you can interpret written words better than the people who wrote them. Anyone who thinks the 14th applies to illegals is trying to change the Constitution based on their own interpretation, not the intent.