How would you interpret the 14th amendment as it relates to the children of illegal immigrants who through no fault of their own were brought to the U.S. and in so doing broke a federal law? There was a context in history when the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was written. July 9th, 1868 was the date this Amendment was ratified granting all slave's children the right to be "natural born citizens" of the U. S. This context was clear as we have the news print articles from various states which recorded it's purpose. If "original intent" could preclude other interpretations of an amendment then "original intent" could be applied to other Amendments and preclude other interpretations of the said amendment, correct? Therefore, in Amendment One when free speech and the freedom of the press is mentioned we also could conclude that pornography which had yet to be created would be excluded in the "original intent" of the authors of Amendment One. So persists the question: Why do we allow this defense to exist in courts? Our Amendments exist to the benefit of all and to the demise of no one. Pornography degrades women and men, destroys true understanding of sex, perverts the minds of individuals and is just morally wrong.
