So in the debate over how SCOTUS will rule on the 14th Amendment in October there are two camps

First Camp: Believes that the 14th has been purposefully misinterpreted for the last century + and it actually means something else and they provide evidence (compelling evidence) to backup their claims they also believe they are upholding the constitution as it is already written which is an important part as well.

Second Camp: Also believes they are upholding the constitution and that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which is the crux of the first camps argument means something different and they point to subsequent SCOTUS cases to show this such as Plyer Vs Doe.

But there is a THIRD CAMP that nobody ever talks about...

Third Camp: The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1968 and during that time the US was still in "Reconstruction" and parts of the country were under a military dictatorship and thus they constitutionally could not properly vote utilizing Article V powers and that the amendment could have and should have never been ratified in the first place as it is blatantly unconstitutional.

contextualizing constitutional amendments by the time they were written is how we end up with shit like
>the 2nd amendment applies only to muskets

>1968
1868*

>>509272042
You were right the first time. The South still hasn't recovered from the civil war