With millions of 'births' to illegal immigrants becoming legal citizens in the United States, a legal brief offered by former Attorney General Edwin Meese seems interesting.

From the Claremont Institute:

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, together with Dr. John C. Eastman, Director of The Claremont Institute's Center for Constitution Jurisprudence filed an amicus curiae brief on March 29 urging the U.S. Supreme Court correct its overly broad and erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.

Eastman and Meese argue:

The current understanding of the Citizenship Clause is incorrect, as a matter of text, historical practice, and political theory. As an original matter, mere birth on U.S. soil was insufficient to confer citizenship as a matter of constitutional right. Rather, birth, together with being a person subject to the complete and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States (i.e., not owing allegiance to another sovereign) was the constitutional mandate, a floor for citizenship below which Congress cannot go in the exercise of its Article I power over naturalization.

Might this be the answer to the 14th Amendment, and millions of births to illegal immigrant mothers and fathers inside of the US? Could the Supreme Court 'clarify' the content of the 14th Amendment, for the cause of denying legal citizenship for those who are in the US illegally?