[Just another Joe]

During the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil.

Already before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause we have the entire Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this is law of the land.

It doesn't matter what the "view" is or what Congress "declares".
All that matters is the wording of the Constitution.

"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."

If you take what the "view" or what Congress "declares" you have made the Consitution into a "living document". Is that truly what you want?
If you don't like it fight to have it changed.

[BlackElk]

I absolutely agree with your #75. If the actual words of the constitution itself are not dispositive, what could be? Without ambiguity, there is no room for "interpretation." Nor should there be.

I practiced law for twenty-five years. The lawyers and judges whom Freepers reasonably rage against are those who are forever trying to twist the plain meaning of statutory or constitutional words.