This is actually on-topic, as the people who are part of the constitutional edit war proscribe to the idea known as constitutional originalism. It looks like it may be similar, but its not, to constitutional textualism. Basically, the people who are originalists believe that the idea - or the original intent - behind the amendments are more important than the actual text. The people who are wanting the 14th amendment repealed or changed are the originalists.
I believe there's only two originalists on the Supreme Court today - Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The other two conservatives on the court, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, are textualists. To compare the two, the right to privacy is good barometer. John Roberts and Samuel Alito believe that the right to privacy, even it was not the original intent, is within the text of the constitution. Keep in mind that even Scalia and Thomas believe that the right to citizenship upon birth is protected under the constitution and that these people are bullshit.
Basically, the originalists feel that the Supreme Court has not properly utilized the 14th amendment so they are attempting to remove it from the constitution. Or at least the birthright provision.
This is probably just an attempt to arouse the anger of some of the more bigoted people to keep certain politicians in office. The politicians will vote on these things, but they know that the laws will be struck down. The attempt to remove this provision from the constitution is just a way of showing, "see! I'm keeping my promise", even though the representative/senator knows fully well that repealing that part of the amendment will never happen. Even though the Republican party is in the majority, it's not going to completely alienate the Hispanic vote.
edited 1st Mar '11 2:36:39 AM by Completion
I'm usually using my phone so typos and dropped words are bound to show up.