Birthright’s 1866–1868 Language Gap

The Fourteenth Amendment’s phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction' is not the same as the 1866 Civil Rights Act’s 'not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.' The article argues this textual shift, combined with sparse ratification evidence, means there’s no clean originalist answer on birthright citizenship. Courts must therefore confront the enacted constitutional language rather than assume it codified the statute. — If the binding text diverges from the statute, the coming Supreme Court ruling—and any congressional fix—must be framed as choosing an administrable rule under genuine ambiguity, not as uncovering a settled historical meaning.