Okay. So since the morons among us seem to not be aware of how the Constitution works:
The Supreme Court does not have the authority to determine whether a law is constitutional, once that law has been duly ratified by the governing authority. If it could, then that means the Supreme Court has the power to determine the law of the land. “But,” you might say, “they can’t introduce new legislation, so they’re not writing the laws.” Correct. And wrong, at the same time. No, they wouldn’t be writing laws. But the Legislature represents the will of the People in its most direct sense. The Executive branch enacts and enforces laws, the Judicial branch renders opinions regarding disputes over the laws, but only the Legislative branch has the ability to ratify and repeal laws. Even should the President or a Governor choose to veto a bill, if both houses of Congress vote with sufficient majority, the veto may be overruled and the bill will pass into law. Just as a reminder of where the real power in government was intended to lie.
“Judicial Review”, where a court may strike down a law by determining it to be “unconstitutional”, is not found anywhere within the text of the Constitution. The Judicial branch gave itself the ability to do that, in 1803’s Marbury v. Madison. ; Judicial Review was never listed among the intended powers of the court system. Did the court have the ability to do that? The court said it did...but Congress never did. And Congress is the body that may amend the Constitution – that decides what the Constitution says. Congress alone may write bills and pass them into law.
The court’s decision was one they never had the authority to make; if it was, then the court may give itself more powers as it chooses. Congress never said the Supreme Court (and any lower court, by default) has any authority to determine a law to be unconstitutional. So legally, they don’t. Until Congress passes an act which explicitly states the Supreme Court may determine Constitutionality of a law.
“...born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...”
Do some research. The original authors of the bill worded it as they did to address the issue of former slaves, who had hitherto been unable to become citizens. The original authors also intended for the amendment to not cover foreigners and their children. Illegal immigrants and their children are not protected by the 14th Amendment; to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, one must legally be a citizen. If one is not a citizen, children born to them are not US citizens no matter where they are born. Nor are the children of US citizens automatically citizens of other countries if they’re born abroad (e.g. diplomats and overseas military personnel). In order for one’s children to be protected by the Constitution, one must be a legal citizen of the USA.
