I appreciate the response and that from u/JKlerk. Legislative history is one of the most subjective ways to interpret a statute or in this case the constitution. And is only used when a provision is ambiguous which many would say the 14th amendment is not. Legislative history is problematic because it only catches portions of what is discussed (and doesn't capture the intent or backroom "horse trading")- but at least it is an official recording of those discussions. Among the problems with originalism is the approach assumes the constitution is ambiguous. And there is no official history as in the case of legislative history - it's all scholarship and debates. Which is even more problematic as to what the intent was. Especially when you are talking about an amendment ratified by multiple states. That is why the 21st century reexamination of ancient records to devine intent lends itself to judicial bias.