[Clemenza]

Whatever your thoughts on "original intent" maybe, they nevertheless must take into account decades of judicial precedent which state that the 14th covers the citizenship of those born on US soil, even to illegal residents. It would take a reversal at the Supreme Court level to change this. In other words, there ain't mierda we can do legislatively to end birthright citizenship for illegals.

One of the problems of having a Common Law system is that the judiciary has alot more clout in terms of legal interpretation than is the case in a Civil Law system. This is why you have so many people bitching about "unelected, all-powerful judges" all the time. This is an issue in all countries in the Anglosphere, where the Common Law gives disproportionate power to judicial interpretation.

[TheThinker]

Whatever your thoughts on "original intent" maybe, they nevertheless must take into account decades of judicial precedent which state that the 14th covers the citizenship of those born on US soil, even to illegal residents. It would take a reversal at the Supreme Court level to change this. In other words, there ain't mierda we can do legislatively to end birthright citizenship for illegals.

There is one beacon of light on the issue of judicial precedent.

While Roberts conceded that "departures from precedent are inappropriate in the absence of a ‘special justification,'" he added that "At the same time, stare decisis is neither an ‘inexorable command'... nor ‘a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision' ... especially in constitutional cases," noting that "If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants."