Intent of the Presidential Executive Order

There is an inordinate “thick-headedness” out there in La La Land about the proposed Executive Order [EO]. Of course the President cannot amend the Constitution with an EO. An EO only has the effect of law until overruled by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction or by legislation. In my opinion, only one such court has that, being equal to the Office of President, according to the Constitution—the Supreme Court of the United States [SCOTUS]. I do not believe ANY lower court has that authority—that is another misinterpretation of the meaning and intent of the Framers, dinked with over time by spurious case law. 
That is not the intent of the EO, a fact lost on lame duck Paul Ryan and FOX Moderator Martha McCallum, bless their l’il pea pickin’ hearts. The President has no need to amend because the language in the 14th Amendment, being argued, is being interpreted by the WH as providing the authority to nullify the Anchor Baby issue altogether. The bottom line of the EO is to kick it up to the Supreme Court of the United States by any means available. The EO is one such means.
The 14th Amendment is a “Johnny Come Lately” Amendment, ratified after the Civil War to address descendants of slaves and American Indians, as it turned out, not the illegal entry of foreign citizens. In other words, it was poorly crafted and it was not crafted by the original Framers.
The issue being argued right now is some very vague language, five words in fact: “any person within its jurisdiction”. This language is speaking to the individual States. This obscure language has been debated practically since the Amendment was Ratified. SCOTUS has never had a case in which they had to determine the meaning and intent of those 5 words. No matter whether this issue is kicked to SCOTUS by EO or legislation is academic—it can only be finally decided in the Supreme Court. The intent of the President is to issue the EO and begin the legal process for what needs to be done in any event. 
I simply do not understand why people are struggling with this. I would add too that I believe this to be a two pronged issue. There is nothing in the 14th Amendment that nullifies the supreme authority given to the President in Article II of the Constitution. As I stated, the 14th Amendment was written with respect to the individual states, most primarily aimed at the “slave states”. All things considered, the 14th Amendment is no longer pertinent but it is there so it has to be dealt with by SCOTUS, one way or the other.