General Discussion

And unless you are a Supreme Court Justice, they outrank you.

If you bothered to read any of the briefs, at any court level, you know that no one was questioning the phrase "All persons.". The argument was over the interpretation of the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Because of the word "and," to be a birthright citizen you have to be both "all persons" AND "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Since not all persons in the United States are subject to it's jurisdiction, there are exclusions.

The exclusion everyone agrees on are children born to foreign diplomats, whose diplomatic immunity excludes them from being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Surely you are aware of infamous cases of diplomats who have raped or murdered people in the United States but who could not be charged with crimes? These diplomats, and children born to then while they are stationed in the United States are not US citizens. I am not aware of any person trained in the law who believes otherwise.

So there are, unquestionably, exceptions to "all persons."

So the interpretation of the second phrase is what was at issue - how broad is the exception? Four of the 9 people we have charged with having the final say on what the constitution says believe that exception (which everyone with legal training agrees exists) is broader than just diplomats.

I disagree with those 4 - but I'm not Supreme Court Justice, so I didn't get to decide what it means. But, as an attorney, I am very familiar with how phrases which seem obvious to lay people can have multiple potential meanings. That's how the law works, and that is why there is a Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of what the constitution actually means.