Reply #63: I agree the clear intent of the 14th amendment was that persons was to mean "natural born" persons. [View All]

[Xicano]

That is why I referred to the Santa Clara county case as one which "exploits" the 14th amendment. Nevertheless, as I mentioned, the wording in the 14th amendment and the wording in "legal terms" defining "persons" makes the Santa Clara case have legitimate standing.

This is why even if the Santa Clara county case was quashed, all it would take is another case to make the same legitimate argument and, again, I hate to say it, but, they would have legal standing.

This is one of the reasons why we all loath attorneys. I am sorry for pointing the this little flaw with big implications in the 14th amendment, but, it is what it is, and, all I am doing is pointing out that there is indeed a flaw.

And it ain't like as if the examples I posted above defining "persons" in legal terms are the exception. In every legal dictionary it will be the same thing. Here's a couple of pics from just my pocket legal dictionary I use when arguing on behalf of fellow longshoremen in grievance hearings with shipping companies. The same thing; persons are not just people, but, also corporations amongst others.

If that last use of the word person in section 1. of the 14th amendment was changed to people, or even natural born persons. The Santa Clara case would be dead.