Nancy Gish - Women's Studies wrote:
>  They could not,
> for example, rule that an American could become a duke since that
> is forbidden in the Constitution.  They could not rule that
> Schwarzenegger could run for president, since he is not a natural
> born citizen.  It would require an amendment.  They can only do
> what the Constitution allows.

It's worth considering what (altering the phrase Wellek used for a
chapter title) is the ontological status of The Constitution. It is a
text, and as writers from almost all perspectives have argued, a text in
itself has no meaning: that is, it has meaning only as it is construed
by a reader. After all, Milton argued vigorously and at length that
statements in the NT condemning divorce actually approved divorce. And
the Supreme Court has been ruling for about a century and a quarter that
certain 'entities' that do not breathe, eat, couple, defecate are
nevertheless persons under the protection of the 14th amendment.

A Court that treats Corporations as persons surely could just as easily
approve of Dukedoms for u.s. citizens or define "naturalized citizen" as
"native-born citizen."

In fact, unless there is a really major political shift in the next few
years it is almost certain that the Court will rule that "born in the
U.S." does _not_ mean "born in the U.S." for those with grandparents
from the Mideast.