[Cboldt]

A recent counter to Valentine's "I argue that would include the right of women to bequeath their citizenship upon their children in the same manner and to the same extent as men" is Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001).

The difference between men and women in relation to the birth process is a real one, and the principle of equal protection does not forbid Congress to address the problem at hand in a manner specific to each gender.

If one adopts the dissent's argument, the best Nguyen could have obtained was naturalized citizenship. Valentine starts with a kook premise, then just builds layers of kookery on top of his original flawed analysis and conclusion.

[Pontiac]

The difference between men and women in relation to the birth process is a real one, and the principle of equal protection does not forbid Congress to address the problem at hand in a manner specific to each gender.

I would argue that it takes more than an act of congress or a court decision to change the Constitution.

At the time of the framing and ratification of the Constitution citizenship was passed from the father to his children.

Changing the Constitution from what the framers intended to what the popular opinion of the day happens to be still requires that the processes of Article 5 be followed. Congress alone nor the Courts have the power to alter the Constitution.

Were it otherwise the Constitution would be meaningless.