I know that you're being facetious, but just because you don't like the interpretation of the 14th Amendment doesn't make that interpretation invalid.
Again, the proper remedy is an Amendment. That's the only way to "clarify" the Constitution if you think the Supremes are interpreting it incorrectly.
The Congress does NOT have to amend the constitution. Congress only needs to redifine "Jurisdiction" to mean a child who is born to parents lawfully in the United States because defining jurisdiction is perfectly within Congress' constitutional rights.
See Below:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:jlnDNpFLQdMJ:commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43144.000/hju43144_0.HTM+%22define+Jurisdiction%22+%22birthright+citizenship%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8
CITIZENSHIP REFORM ACT OF 1997; AND VOTER ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION ACT
Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Watt.
Let me go to myself and direct my first question to Dr. Erler. Now, Dr. Erler, I found your testimony persuasive, and I also found the words of Senator Howard on the Senate floor during the debate on the 14th amendment to be persuasive as well. I don't know how you can ignore the clear meaning of his words.
But the question I had for you is: What is the advantage, why should we pursue Mr. Bilbray's bill as opposed to seeking a constitutional amendment? What are the advantages of trying to change the definition by statute rather than by the Constitution?
Mr. ERLER. Well, I'm of the opinion, as I think you probably are, too, that we ought to amend the Constitution as infrequently as we possibly can. In this instance, I think that Congress has complete power under section 5 of the 14th amendment to DEFINE JURISDICTION [EMPHASIS MINE], to define who is within the jurisdiction of the United States, and in fact has done so on many, many occasions. And so I think that legislation which could cure this increasing public problem that we have is the preferred step.
Mr. SMITH. OK, thank you, Dr. Erler.