Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Antipitas said:So citizenship was an evolving standard. That evolution was based upon amendments to the Constitution, as it should be.
So your argument is that the 19th Amendment conferred more than the right to vote? The 19th Amendment (and subsequent amendments) conferred all the rights of citizenship, including those understood in Corfield?
If that is the case, then it seems to me the problem is:
1. Why didn't they say that in the amendment instead of only listing the right to vote?
2. Why did restrictions on professional pursuits and real property ownership for women remain valid for many years afterwards?
That it took the Courts and legislatures of the States time to play catch up, does not negate the facts of the evolution.
My guess is that you are going to find very little originalist interpretation in the evolution that gave women citizens the same rights as men. Since it seems that everyone agrees that the Pandora's Box problem can only be solved by an originalist interpretation of the 14th Amendment, it seems to create a bit of a dilemma.
Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that women have lesser citizenship rights than men. I am just arguing that I do not see an originalist argument of the 14th Amendment that applies the privileges and immunities clause to women. Considering that Senator Howard outright denied any intent to do that during the debates on the 14th Amendment, I think that is going to be difficult to do in a coherent way that doesn't open the door to right to welfare.