No such thing was contemplated on the part of the committee which reported the amendment. and if I recollect rightly. nothing to that effect was said in debate in the Senate when it was on its passage. Did not Senator Howard continue to say: The construction which is now sought to be put upon the first section of this 14th article. it seems to me. is plainly and flatly contradicted by what follows in the second section of the same article. After declaring in the first section that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside". and after declaring that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". the second section goes on to say: "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States. Representatives in Congress. the executive and judicial officers of a State. or the members of the legislature thereof. is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State." etc. And did not Senator Howard add: These are plainly and in the clearest possible terms [words] recognizing the right of each State to regulate the suffrage and to impart or to declare the necessary qualificationsAnd so forth.
Keywords matched
naturalized