Briefly on Birthright Citizenship

 I understand that there is a case pending before SCOTUS on Trump's attempt to end what is called "birthright citizenship." I'm sure I've said this here before, but I don't understand how there can even be a legal question about such citizenship. The US Constitution is often vague or ambiguous. It isn't always entirely clear what it means when applied to any specific case. That is one of the legal realities that keeps the courts busy. But there is no vagueness or ambiguity about birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution begins: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes the very few people born in the US but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The classic examples are children of foreign diplomats and children of enemy soldiers. The phrase "All persons" is itself perfectly plain and clear. With the very rare exception of people born here but not subject to the laws of the United States, if you're born here, you are a citizen. Period. I can't even dream up an argument that says the phrase means anything else. Donald Trump and his fascist allies may want to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants, but the Constitution just won't let them do it. They can make every policy argument they want to support their unconstitutional position, but policy preferences have nothing to do with it. When interpreting any law, including the Constitution, a court must first ask: What does the law say? Then it must ask: Is there anything vague or ambiguous about what the law's language means. If there is, the court can consider the arguments of the parties to the case about what it should mean in the case before the court. But if there isn't, the court can do only one of two things. It can declare the law unconstitutional, or it can apply the plain language of the law to the case it is considering. You can't, of course, declare a constitutional provision unconstitutional. It is constitutional by definition. The language of the 14th Amendment is clear and unambiguous. I don't see how SCOTUS has any choice but to throw Trump's case out of court promptly and perhaps even with sanctions against the Trump administration for having brought the case in the first place.