"What is written down and passed as law is the only thing that actually IS law, and is binding."
But you don't understand how "jurisdiction" is defined in law. Jurisdiction is DEFINABLE by Congress. For example, Congress has full authority to pass laws regulating interstate or not regulating commerce depending on how they define goods that are "subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States".
In the case of the 14th amendment, Congress also has full authority to define "Subject to the Jurisdiction" as applying only to people lawfully present within American territory. Likewise, they can define Jurisdiction to mean anyone born in the US regardless of lawful presence is under US "Jurisdiction".
"I'd expect that any effort to simply legislate that away would be struck down by the Courts as unconstitutional."
Congress can take away Federal and Supreme Court "Jurisdiction" to review birthright citizenship changes as per Article III Section 2 of the Constitution.
For example, the Congress last year took away the Federal and Supreme Courts "JURISDICTION" to review a bill that blocked people from being able to sue Gun manufacturers under certain circumstances. That law is now completely unreviewable by any Federal Court.
The same thing can be done to any bill denying birthright citizenship, and there is no Court that could strike down that bill IF Congress wants to do this.
If anyone thinks this law is unconstitutional, the only way to change it would be for the people to vote in Legislators that will restore birthright citizenship to Illegals.
Thanks for your insight.
You don't give the courts enough credit for being able to tear that argument to shreds.
Congress doesn't have the power to pass laws that violate the Constitution. If it does so, and attempts to prevent judicial review by asserting that the courts don't have the jurisdiction to overturn an unconstitutional law, well, you'll see how fast that holds up. The Supreme Court will rule that it is the fundamental role of the court to decide on matters of constitutionality, and while Congress has broad discretion within its sphere, it does not have the authority to amend the Constitution by simple legislation, but must follow the Article V amendment procedure. The Supreme Court would find that attempting to deprive those born on US soil of citizenship was legislation contrary to the 14th Amendment, and beyond the power of Congress. The Court would also dismiss any argument that Congress can prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing ANY law for Constitutionality.
As to the gun manufactures, Congress can certainly say that the Courts don't have jurisdiction to hear such cases, but Congress cannot prevent the Courts from reviewing that law itself for Constitutionality. Congress cannot prevent the Courts from throwing out unconstitutional laws. The Courts won't permit that override of their authority.