Seriously. For those who say they love the Constitution, how do you defend this man in this moment?

This "executive order" is a political move a week before the primaries. The day it is signed it will be challenged in a federal court. The only time to be concerned is if it makes it to the Supreme Court. They could rule against the established interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Personally, I hope a law is passed in Congress and signed by the president to end "birthright citizenship."

That would be what Lindsey Graham is trying to do. And y'know what? I don't like it at all, but at least that's the way it's supposed to happen. If Congress, the President, and the States all want it, that's what'll be, and I'll deal with it.

The President just throwing an executive order out there? Well, that's the number 1 complaint Republicans had with Obama, and he never did anything that actually changed the Constitution. Even if they agree with the intent, the method is wildly inappropriate and hypocritical.

The method (executive orders) is flawed (pretty dang bad in my book) but the wording of the 14th Amendment is up for debate since there have been no precedents set in the Supreme Court in a long time.

Hopefully Trump is just making a political move before the midterms to bring the topic into the public debate and make way for an actual court case and ultimately legislation to be passed. I really don't want him to starting writing executive orders left and right while his minions salivate at the idea of "winning til you get tired."

Because his executive order actually is returning the meaning to its originalist context.
See Elk vs Wilkins

Elk v. Wilkins is specific to Native Americans (who, while physically born on US soil, are born as citizens of their specific tribe which also occupies that very soil), was decided in 1884 while wars with Native American tribes still raged (making Native Americans of the time perceived to be immediate enemies of the US), and is moot because of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (which granted full US rights to Native Americans). Unless a child is born within the confines of the Honduran Embassy (which, while on US soil, is technically also on Honduran soil), we are actively at war with Honduras (and therefore would not allow any Honduran into the country without an exhaustive process in the first place), or we pass a law excluding Hondurans from our immigration process (which of course is unconstitutional and would bring sanctions from a great number of our allies), there's no legal basis at all for denying citizenship for someone born in the US..

I don't know how much clearer "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" could possibly be.

No, Elk vs Wilkins involved a native American, but DEFINED what is meant by "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for EVERYBODY. It established that the parents had to be legal permanent residents for the child to be considered "subject to the jurisdiction therof" for anyone. The fact that an act of congress specifically addressed Native Americans born in the US has nothing to do with the definition precedent. So, you are WRONG.

You keep telling yourself that. We'll see how it plays out.

I dont have to tell myself, I already know. Everyone knows. Which is why even the wikipedia article on Elk vs Wilkins says: however no subsequent Supreme Court case has reversed the majority opinion offered on Elk v. Wilkins including the detailed definitions of the terms of the 14th Amendment as written by Justice Gray. The Elk v. Wilkins opinion remains valid for interpretation of future citizenship issues regarding the 14th Amendment, but has been rendered undebatable for its application to native Indians due to the Act of Congress.