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.
Trump said on O’Reilly tonight his intention is to challenge the current interpretation of the 14th amendment in court. He said his lawyers tell him it doesn’t really mean birthright citizenship. He said an amendment would take too long.
I agree with you. And I think this shows Trump is politically/legally naive. And that he’s trying to sell us some things which he just can’t realistically do.
However, I agree we should push for an amendment on this and on abortion. A new study/poll shows in detail that immigration and abortion are perhaps the two biggest areas where the majority of the public is much more conservative than the current law is.
Well here is what one prominent Cornell Graduate thinks about that.
Violating the Constitution as written and originally intended and understood is how the Left attempts to change the Constitution either by ignoring it legislatively or actively changing it from the bench.
The liberal theorist doctrine of "positive law" (if it's a law it is valid because it is a law) is fatally flawed but it continues to be one way they attempt get around the Constitution. But the Supremacy Clause requires valid federal law to be made IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution.
Legislative intent is a foundation issue in understanding and properly applying the law.