So I was thinking about Amendment 14 last week, and I had the idea to consider it logically. It breaks up into a fairly simple statement that can be analyzed using nothing more than the rules of logic, like so:

1) IF:
   a) someone is a person
   AND
   b) that person is either:
      1) born in the United States
      OR
      2) naturalized into the United States
   AND
   c) that person is subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States
2) THEN:
   a) that person is:
      1) a citizen of the United States
      AND
      2) a citizen of the state wherein they reside
   AND
   b) no state may make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priveleges or immunities of that person

(That looks complicated, but it's easier to mess with than the original text.)

So, take me. Since I meet conditions 1a and 1b1 (let's leave c for the time being), then either all of 2 is true, or 1c is false, because that's the only condition left. So either I'm a citizen of the United States, and a citizen of Arizona, and so it's unconstitutional for Arizona to pass a law abridging my "priveleges and immunities," OR I'm not subject to the jurisdiction of any of its laws anyway.
Which means, for example, that either AZ's "sure, pass a curfew" law is unconstitutional, or I have the constitutional right to ignore it. It's impossible to have it both ways, that I'm a citizen and have to obey the law, yet a non-citizen in that a law can abridge my first amendment rights no problem.
Unless anyone cares to argue that I'm not a person.

Anyone want to show me where I'm wrong? I'm not a constitutional scholar nor a logician.