To the editor: As I perceive it, Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissenting argument was that the 14th Modification was meant solely to use to kids of freed slaves, its true that means being discovered solely within the context of the instances by which it was written (“Birthright citizenship should never have been in question,” June 30). By that very same logic, does Thomas imagine that authors of the 2nd Modification solely had single-shot muskets in thoughts — you realize, the true that means of the 2nd Modification solely being discovered within the context of the instances?
Nicholas Herlick, Beaumont
..
To the editor: Not being a lawyer, I’m able to perceive the clearly written 14th Modification granting U.S. citizenship to anybody born on our soil (“Supreme Court rejects Trump’s plan to limit birthright citizenship,” June 30). For 3 Supreme Courtroom justices to not totally perceive the primary sentence on this clearly written legislation is past perception.
Derrik Van de Zande, Rancho Cucamonga
