"Birthright Citizenship" NOT Grounded in Law

Section 1, Amendment XIV: "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..."

In accordance with the original meaning and intent as clearly stated by the XIV's framers' (Sens. Howard and Bingham), this provision does NOT include automatic "birthright citizenship" to children of illegal aliens, the latter who are subject to the jurisdiction of and owe their allegiance to their countries of origin. And since children, historically, derive their citizenship from their parents, the children of illegals owe their allegiance to their parents' country as well. Anyone caring to understand this section of the amendment needs but to read the words of Sens. Howard and Bingham who wrote the damn thing. (Like I've always counseled, when in doubt as to what is and is not constitutional, READ THE CONSTITUTION and the relative founding documents, e.g. the Federalist Papers, which explain the Constitution's meaning.)

But, since there is needless confusion over the meaning and appropriate application of this section, who should clarify its meaning? Not that faithless gaggle of notoriously revisionist black-robed judicial oligarchs we call the "Supreme" Court. Over the years, the court has consistently and grossly misinterpreted and misapplied XIV, to say nothing of virtually all other provisions in the Constitution. SO, as per Sec 5 of the XIV Amendment, it is wiser to leave it's clarification to the People's representatives in Congress and hope for the best.

Tragically, in the end who can We trust to properly represent us and to uphold the Constitution as originally intended? Have any of our reps even read the Constitution and, more importantly, honored their oath to preserve, protect and defend it? Fortunately, I have but 10 fingers and, sadly, that's likely the number--albeit on the high end--in Congress today who more or less honor their oath. A disturbing and sobering problem for us all.

And why so precious few constitutionalists in Congress? Truth is, a person who adheres to original meaning and intent and who regards his oath as sacred has zero chance of being elected. Hell, I very seriously doubt even Madison and Jefferson could get elected as dog catcher in today's anything goes welfare state. How dangerously far afield we've strayed, huh? The reality is that without promises of unconstitutional bread and circuses, not one of our founders could be nominated today, much less elected.