The SCOTUS never interpreted the Amendment with regard to birth here. The Amendment’s authors never intended for there to be birth right citizenship. They made it clear in their writings that those born to illegals were NOT citizens. The SCOTUS just needs to read the writings of the authors in order to interpret what is meant.

The same is true with the Second Amendment and now they finally have…

Plyler v. Doe does NOT have to do with cases of alien parents who are in the country legally.

Furthermore:

“Use of the phrase “within its jurisdiction” thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State’s civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction — either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States — he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.”

– Plyler v. Doe (1982)

And moreover:

“[V]isiting . . . condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth, and penalizing the . . . child is an ineffectual — as well as unjust — way of deterring the parent.”

Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

It’s also ungenuine of you to cite from the Slaughterhouse cases, as those have been overturned, incorporating the 14th Amendment against the States.

All that being said, as a sovereign nation the U.S has every right to close its borders, as well as the right to create and enforce an immigration policy that is beneficial to it.

Illegal immigration IS harmful to our society, and every just and lawful means to end or at least mitigate it should be taken. But exempting the children born within the United States is not one of these: they are citizens. The proper direction to take is to prevent those births.

As a Constitutional law professor, Obama knows, or should know, he is not at liberty to change the Constitution to suit his whim, or his desire.

He should also know, if aware of America’s nationalism, that this is a primary problem of Americans right now with President George Bush - that he also believes too well in the Unitary Executive theory of the Presidency that presumes dictatorship powers, not presidential powers.

For all of the impeachment problems the Clinton’s went through, never did Bill Clinton, presume the Unitary Executive approach to alter the Constitution from its original intent.

Just a difference in the perspective of Constitutional law professors, or something more?

Someone should be asking.

Just a little suggestion. There is a plugin called WP-Ban, works good, I utilize it often. Imbeciles like your troll would not have lasted past the 2nd non-linked, topic ignorant comment. But then again, I’m an A-Hole and I love it.

We use to deny citizenship to those who were born to aliens but that changed and not due to a ruling but due to a footnote in a case.

The fact is, the original intent of the Amendment was to deny birthright citizenship to those born of aliens and other non citizens. This is indisputable when the authors words are taken into account. We cannot just change things without using the proper legal means to change the Constitution.

Congress should, at a minimum, write a law to clarify this and it will be settled.

The inportant words are subject to the jurisdiction thereof and what those words mean are clearly explained by the guys who wrote it.

Imagine if we took the First Amendment and ignored what the founders wrote about it and said free speech was only legal on Tuesday. It would violate what the thing means and it would be wrong.

All one needs do is read what the guys who wrote it said that it meant. Pretty simple really.

That could easily be interpreted to say that legal status of the parents doesn’t matter. In point of fact, the US Supreme Court hasn’t rendered an explicit ruling on this ever. In some cases the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda and Plyler v. Doe.

Be careful though BD, talking bad about Barack Hussein Obama will get you branded a racist.
The only candidate you can talk about is white and male oh and a Republican….Sarcasm..