Trump is the head of the Republican Party after all

nonsense. I'm more than happy to hear your different points of views Timber1972, but that is pure nonsense to say people on the left don't understand the constitution.

Your meme says you do not understand the 14th, but nice to hear you're willing to listen to the pure nonsense different points of views.

memes by nature are not great for having a reasoned debate. But I'll, bite, what is it that you think I don't understand?

The application of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens has not original part of the 14th, but came from a court ruling. The authors themselves said that it did not apply to illegal aliens and therefor no one is talking about canceling the 14th.

Which court ruling is that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark This ruling itself is correctly only for legal aliens, but later expanded to illegals in Plyler v. Doe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

Ok, thanks for your link, it was interesting. However, birthright citizenship is in section one of the 14th amendment. As you point out there is and was room for interpretation and it was that ruling in 1898 that established that it applied to everybody born in the US. The fact that there is some disagreement and dissent about it, shows that reasonable people can have opposing opinions on both sides of the debate. I would still argue that Trump's claim is unconstitutional because he says he could cancel it by executive order whereas changing the constitution requires a two thirds majority in the Congress and then ratification by 38 out of 50 States. His claims to be able to change the Constitution by executive order should be obnoxious to you no matter what side of the political fence you are on.

The extension for all was Plyler v. Doe in 1982. It is a court ruling rather than what the 14th actually says, so the unconstitutional thing is not "factual". It might be ruled one way or the other in a court challange.