The Fourteenth Amendment is not an extension of the Constitution, is an assertion that the Constitution of the United States is without power to grant or allow anyone to take away the birth right citizenship one attains when born.

“[t]he Government is without power to take citizenship away from a native-born or lawfully naturalized American. The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes that this priceless right is immune from the exercise of governmental powers…the Court also has its duties, none of which demands more diligent performance than that of protecting the fundamental rights of individuals. That duty is imperative when the citizenship of an American is at stake -- that status which alone assures him the full enjoyment of the precious rights conferred by our Constitution.” Perez v. Brownel, U.S. Supreme Court

The duties of citizenship are numerous, and the discharge of many of these obligations is essential to the security and wellbeing of the Nation…Deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon that the Government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen's conduct, however reprehensible that conduct may be…[denying the citizenship birth right is] offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands. It subjects the individual to a fate of everincreasing fear and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people. He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international community of democracies.” U.S. Supreme Court

“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of [citizenship], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the
principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.” United State Supreme Court

What this means is that the Framers of the Constitution—most of them not born within the jurisdiction of the United States—followed the maxim “protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem” which was the principle behind citizenship. Protection to the State is guarantee by an individual if the State guarantees protection back, that is the meaning of citizenship.

Those who want to negate the constitutional birth right of a person have to disprove what has already been established as a fact in the highest court of the land. The term citizenship is not just a word, it is a concept with legal roots in principles that extend beyond the birth of the United States of America.

It strikes me of odd that people in the United States are still wondering what constitutes to be a citizen. I find it more disturbing that Congress is ignorant about this concept. Citizenship is a right obtained either by birth, by transfer or by choice. Citizenship by birth is technically called “jus soli” citizenship, citizenship by transfer is called “jus sanguinis” citizenship, and citizenship by choice is attained by applying for citizenship through a process of naturalization. No citizen in the United States can lose his citizenship easily, in contrast, citizenship can only be lost by self declaration. It is illegal for the United States to enact laws that would take the right of citizenship in any other form.

The Law Maker in this report has mislead the readers by indicating that the Fourteenth amendment needs to be amended. The fourteenth amendment was born after the civil war. It was an amendment that sustained the rights of those who were not considered citizens of the United States at that time. Court cases like Dread Scott v. Sandford proved the need to have this amendment. The amendment declares that the Citizenship birth right is obtained at the time of birth and is a compact between the individual and the country that saw his or her birth. Jus soli Citizenship is a social compact between the individual and the country and has nothing to do with the parents of the individual. This concept goes as far as the Greeks, the Romans, but the defined concept was adopted by the Framers of the constitution by principles defined in the 1600s.

However, if you are interested to really understand this concept, please read the United States Supreme Court opinions related to U.S. citizenship, particularly “jus soli” citizenship. The most important case describing this was United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where Justice Gray explains that is the right of citizenship that gave power to the Constitution, the constitution guarantees the birth right of citizenship attained by a person because the Constitution cannot maintain its powers if it takes it away from those who give it. Hard to understand Concept but it means that the Constitution is alive because it has made certain social compacts with the people--citizenship is one of those compacts. No law can be enacted or passed in regards of taking away the birth right of citizenship because it in essence is unconstitutional.

This may be a hard concept for some to grasp or accept, specially some Law Makers, but the fact that we are considering not to uphold this right in the United States is of grave concern. My generation is now tested to uphold a basic principle to preserve a Nation. We are destroying the concept of citizenship because we do not understand it and we are too lazy to understand it.

If you are more interested in learning what is citizenship and learn the struggle Americans have endure to preserve it, there is some reading to do. Please do not just rely on a two minute report that shows one side.

Doe d. Duroure v. Jones 4 T.R. 300, 100 E.R. 1031 1791
Osborn v. Bank of the United States 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 738 (1824)
Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. (19 How) 393 1857
Udny v. Udny L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441 (1869)
The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. (16 Wall) 36 (1873)
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. (21 Wall) 162 (1874)
Moore v. United States 91 U.S. 270 (1875)
Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 (1879)
Ex parte Virginia 100 U.S. 339 (1879)
Neal v. Delaware 103 U.S. 370 (1880)
Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
Ex parte Wilson 114 U.S. 417 (1885)
Boyd v. United States 116 U.S. 616 (1886)
Smith v. Alabama 124 U.S. 465 (1888)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Milwaukee County v. M.E. White Co. 296 U.S. 268 (1935)
Magnolia Petroleum Co v. Hunt 320 U.S. 430 (1943)
Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Wolfe 331 U.S. 586 (1947)
Hughes v. Fetter 341 U.S. 609 (1951)
Mah Toi v. Brownell 219 F.2d 642 (1955)
Lee Hong Lung v. Dulles 261 F.2d 719 (1958)
Perez v. Brownell 356 U.S. 44 (1958)
Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Howlett v. Rose 496 U.S. 356 (1990)
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. 514 U.S. 211 (1995)