i have a question for professor baude. i hear what you're saying about trying to shoehorn a revision to birthright citizenship through the words "subject to the jurisdiction of," with the concepts of domicile and allegiance that are not in the constitution. is it true that the supreme court has never actually made a ruling on whether the children of people who are on u.s. soil and do not have legal overturning the president. something i want to hear from professor baude about why i am wrong if i am. william: when the concept was enacted the -- when the 14th was enacted the concept of illegal immigration did not exist. heidi: remember he is an originalist. william: it dealt with something that is technically distinguishable. it is not a case where we have ironclad precedent. there is a footnote in the case that says illegal immigrants are also subject to the jurisdiction . this is going to come down to the courts view of this term in the constitution jurisdiction and there has been a lot of scholarship. jurisdiction is a te