[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Why are the words there? Because there are several categories of people who would not be under the jurisdiction of the United States.

-Diplomats
-Native Americans on their tribal lands
-Enemy Combatants

The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in many, many, many cases. And yet I see a lot of supposition and explanation of how the word “jurisdiction” means something else.

But no links or quotations from cases or law.

Just made up crap that I would expect from liberals who find things like gay marriage and abortion in the Constitution.

The Constitution is clear. We need to change the Constitution to fix this, not make up crap like liberals.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Constitution is clear. We need to change the Constitution to fix this, not make up crap like liberals.

No, we need to reject nonsensical crap that was made up by Liberals in the past.

When they deliberately interpret it WRONG, we ought not have to re-write it to fix the problem. For decades they deliberately interpreted the Second Amendment WRONG, and now we've managed to clarify the correct meaning of it.

We need to clarify the correct meaning rather than to buy into the Liberal game of changing the rules, then moving the goal posts so we can't change them back.

Just because Liberal courts are now saying marriage is "gay" do you agree with them?

[Ingtar]

There you go, they are enemy combatants.

[rockrr]

They’re just setting themselves up for more disappointment in this latest Unicorn hunt. ;’)

[Jim W N]

The 14A is anything but clear. It is the worst written amendment ever but I don’t think we need another amendment.

Take a look at the Breibart argument on post #53.

[norton]

One other definition is the presence or absence of allegiance to a foreign government/state (it's part of the oath and once was considered to disallow dual citizenship).
Since illegals in the US are required to have access to their embassy when they are busted for capital crimes, since mexico whines and moans over the death penalty and routinely interferes with prosecution of criminal illegals, and since "we" recognize consular id as qualification for many social give aways, and because mexico controls the access routes they use to get back here when deported, I'd say the US has not even attempted to assert jurisdiction.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Agreed. The definition of "subject to the jurisdiction" is well-settled in U.S. case law.

Mark Levin is correct about what the authors of the 14th intended, but arguing original intent doesn't change the current circumstances under the law.

Suppose Congress did pass a law ending birthright citizenship for the those born to illegal aliens. It will be disputed in the judicial system and SCOTUS is not going to overturn decades - over a century - of law that relies on the current understanding of "subject to the jurisdiction."

The only way to force the issue is a constitutional amendment.