[betty boop]

"[S]trict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." — Thomas Jefferson

Or, as Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson put it in 1949, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

"Birthright citizenry" may be de facto law in the minds of many legal scholars, on the basis of a very superficial reading of the Fourteen Amendment, and Supreme Court rulings based on such a superficial reading. But that doesn't necessarily make it de jure law....

It's 'way past time for Congress to clarify this situation, or risk the destruction of our nation and way of life.

Strong leadership in the Executive may be essential in this regard.

[xzins]

I’m trying to approach this from a literalist point of view to arrive at the “birthright advocates’” position on the ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ question. Even being literalist, it is still a toss-up. It isn’t a matter of ‘subject-hood’ that one gets stopped for going 60 in a 35 mph zone.

So, we’re left with some kind of originalist approach that actually looks into the history, language, intent, etc. of the Congress, states, and times that brought us the 14th.

It is at that level that ‘birthright citizenship’ fails the test. If ‘rationality’ is applied, then that could be said to be using a ‘living constitution’ approach, but I don’t think looking at the rationality of the authors is anything but pure originalism.

Thus, your comment about a ‘suicide pact’ is relevant now because it would have been relevant then.