A Rogue Supreme Court

[DGS49]

There is a lot of philosophical debate about the current state of USSC authority over the other branches of government, both at the federal and state levels.

The answer to all questions seems to be "Marbury v. Madison," and the discussion is over. One may not point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives the USSC the extraordinary power to overturn legislation, or to avoid the actions of Congress or the President. The three branches of government are supposed to be "equal."

Where does the Supreme Court get the authority to nullify the actions of the other two branches of the Federal Government, when its actions are based on (a) questionable readings of the statutes (the "exchanges established by the states" under the ACA), (b) dubious inferences from the Constitution itself (e.g., the non-existent "right of privacy"), or (c) the Court's own policy preferences (e.g., abortion, "affirmative action," and the death penalty)?

More importantly, what are the other two branches (and, in effect the American people) to do when the USSC "goes off the reservation," so to speak?

Consider the current "hot topic" of "birthright-citizenship." If Congress were to pass a law clarifying the original intent of the Authors of the 14th Amendment (as clearly shown in the legislative history) that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed to the offspring of people in the country illegally, there is a more than even chance that the Court would overturn the law, simply because a majority of the Justices just don't like it. That would put us in the situation where a Constitutional Amendment would be required, which is, if your will pardon the expression, bullshit.

One of the problems is lifetime-tenure of the justices, which clearly allows them to draw more and more out of touch with the actual humans who live in this country. Article III Section 1 states that the justices shall hold t heir office "...during good behavior..." Dare one point out that ignoring the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutes "bad" behavior? Could a justice be removed/impeached if tried and convicted in the Congress for blatant disregard of the Constitution?

How else to deal with a rogue Supreme Court?

 

[Obiwan]

Yes, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by Congress.

 

[Pete7469]

Imagine if the SCOTUS declared that the 14th A was unconstitutional, because it was ratified by southern states under military duress?

 

[paddymurphy]

There is a lot of philosophical debate about the current state of USSC authority over the other branches of government, both at the federal and state levels.

The answer to all questions seems to be "Marbury v. Madison," and the discussion is over. One may not point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives the USSC the extraordinary power to overturn legislation, or to avoid the actions of Congress or the President. The three branches of government are supposed to be "equal."

Where does the Supreme Court get the authority to nullify the actions of the other two branches of the Federal Government, when its actions are based on (a) questionable readings of the statutes (the "exchanges established by the states" under the ACA), (b) dubious inferences from the Constitution itself (e.g., the non-existent "right of privacy"), or (c) the Court's own policy preferences (e.g., abortion, "affirmative action," and the death penalty)?

More importantly, what are the other two branches (and, in effect the American people) to do when the USSC "goes off the reservation," so to speak?

Consider the current "hot topic" of "birthright-citizenship." If Congress were to pass a law clarifying the original intent of the Authors of the 14th Amendment (as clearly shown in the legislative history) that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed to the offspring of people in the country illegally, there is a more than even chance that the Court would overturn the law, simply because a majority of the Justices just don't like it. That would put us in the situation where a Constitutional Amendment would be required, which is, if your will pardon the expression, bullshit.

One of the problems is lifetime-tenure of the justices, which clearly allows them to draw more and more out of touch with the actual humans who live in this country. Article III Section 1 states that the justices shall hold t heir office "...during good behavior..." Dare one point out that ignoring the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutes "bad" behavior? Could a justice be removed/impeached if tried and convicted in the Congress for blatant disregard of the Constitution?

How else to deal with a rogue Supreme Court?

Tell us then, genius, when you have a dispute over the meaning of words in a statute, who gets to decide what they mean? The Democrats who wrote and passed the health care law and the President who was implementing it agreed that the words of the statute allowed for the feds to set up exchanges in the states. Some private citizens disagreed and sued. They sued in a Court. A court is where, guess what, disputes over the meaning of statutes and regulations and contracts are decided. That is what Courts do. Appellate Courts decide if the lower Courts were correct in their determination of the meaning of the words in a statute. Ultimately, the "Supreme" Court (there is a reason it is called Supreme) has to resolve, finally, those questions. The authority to do that is not disputed by anyone. It is provided for explicitly in the constitution, Article III, which gives the Supreme Court appellate power over the decisions of inferior courts. It also stems from the Supremacy clause which makes federal law and the constitution supreme over state law. Courts are always faced with disputes over the meaning of words in laws and the constitution. Often they are faced with folks like you who lie about things to advance their claims. This "the original intent of the Authors of the 14th Amendment (as clearly shown in the legislative history) that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed to the offspring of people in the country illegally." is a lie. There is no evidence that the authors of the 14th ever even considered what affect it would have on those in the country illegally. Know why? There were no laws on immigration then. No one was here "illegally" since there was no law limiting who could some in.

There is a right to privacy in the constitution. The Constitution protects the right to liberty. Liberty means the freedom to make decisions about your life without governmental intrusion. Decisions like who you marry, what religion you practice, what medical care you will undergo, etc. And there were no "policy" decisions regarding affirmative action, abortion or the death penalty. As to each, they ruled on the constitution. The ignorance of folks like you about the constitution is astounding. It is a shame that they do not make you take a test about the constitution before letting folks like you vote. You are the epitome of the low information voter.

 

[paddymurphy]

Yes, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by Congress.

So, a Supreme Court Justice can be impeached because they and four others on the bench have a different opinion on the meaning of the constitution than some in Congress? That is what you really think? Well, who decides that their opinions on the constitution are wrong?

 

[Obiwan]

Yes, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by Congress.

So, a Supreme Court Justice can be impeached because they and four others on the bench have a different opinion on the meaning of the constitution than some in Congress? That is what you really think? Well, who decides that their opinions on the constitution are wrong?

The Supreme Court is actually exceeding their authority and doing unconstitutional shit now.
Supreme Court & Judicial Review

 

[JimH52]

Yes, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by Congress.

So, a Supreme Court Justice can be impeached because they and four others on the bench have a different opinion on the meaning of the constitution than some in Congress? That is what you really think? Well, who decides that their opinions on the constitution are wrong?

The Supreme Court is actually exceeding their authority and doing unconstitutional shit now.
Supreme Court & Judicial Review

You mean the court, of which the majority of hustices were chosen by Republican presidents? You mean that court?

 

[Obiwan]

Yes, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by Congress.

So, a Supreme Court Justice can be impeached because they and four others on the bench have a different opinion on the meaning of the constitution than some in Congress? That is what you really think? Well, who decides that their opinions on the constitution are wrong?

The Supreme Court is actually exceeding their authority and doing unconstitutional shit now.
Supreme Court & Judicial Review

You mean the court, of which the majority of hustices were chosen by Republican presidents? You mean that court?

And it will turn more conservative when the Republicans get the White House in 2016.. After all, Ginsberg practically looks like a vegetable now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

DT is a Progressive Statist.

He will appoint justices the far right and libertarian wings don't like one little bit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The thread premise is ridiculous nonsense.

Just because the Court rules in a manner consistent with settled and accepted case law that conflicts with errant conservative dogma doesn't mean the Court is "rogue."

 

[regent]

The framers sad attempt to include slavery in the Constitution began to create problems for the new nation. In Marbury the Court may have had a case, the Congress was changing the Court's jurisdiction, but in Dred Scott the Court went outside its realm of power.
On the other hand the Court seems to have tried, at least since FDR, to follow the will of the people and the nation's changes.

 

[Syriusly]

There is a lot of philosophical debate about the current state of USSC authority over the other branches of government, both at the federal and state levels.

The answer to all questions seems to be "Marbury v. Madison," and the discussion is over. One may not point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives the USSC the extraordinary power to overturn legislation, or to avoid the actions of Congress or the President. The three branches of government are supposed to be "equal."

Where does the Supreme Court get the authority to nullify the actions of the other two branches of the Federal Government, when its actions are based on (a) questionable readings of the statutes (the "exchanges established by the states" under the ACA), (b) dubious inferences from the Constitution itself (e.g., the non-existent "right of privacy"), or (c) the Court's own policy preferences (e.g., abortion, "affirmative action," and the death penalty)?

More importantly, what are the other two branches (and, in effect the American people) to do when the USSC "goes off the reservation," so to speak?

Consider the current "hot topic" of "birthright-citizenship." If Congress were to pass a law clarifying the original intent of the Authors of the 14th Amendment (as clearly shown in the legislative history) that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed to the offspring of people in the country illegally, there is a more than even chance that the Court would overturn the law, simply because a majority of the Justices just don't like it. That would put us in the situation where a Constitutional Amendment would be required, which is, if your will pardon the expression, bullshit.

One of the problems is lifetime-tenure of the justices, which clearly allows them to draw more and more out of touch with the actual humans who live in this country. Article III Section 1 states that the justices shall hold t heir office "...during good behavior..." Dare one point out that ignoring the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutes "bad" behavior? Could a justice be removed/impeached if tried and convicted in the Congress for blatant disregard of the Constitution?

How else to deal with a rogue Supreme Court?

Congress could impeach Roberts just for being white if it wanted to. While the Constitution lays out conditions for impeachment, Congress can impeach for whatever it wants to- since there is no appeal to Congressional Impeachment decisions.

So this is just another whine about the 14th Amendment- and people being citizens you don't think should be citizens?

The language of the 14th Amendment doesn't get much clearer than it does- born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

If you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment- then you need to change the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by Congress.

So, a Supreme Court Justice can be impeached because they and four others on the bench have a different opinion on the meaning of the constitution than some in Congress? That is what you really think? Well, who decides that their opinions on the constitution are wrong?

The Supreme Court is actually exceeding their authority and doing unconstitutional shit now.

That is what Conservatives say whenever they disagree with what the court rules.

Never when the Court rules against gun laws though......

 

[Syriusly]

Imagine if the SCOTUS declared that the 14th A was unconstitutional, because it was ratified by southern states under military duress?

Imagine if winged unicorns delivered our mail?

 

[Syriusly]

There is a lot of philosophical debate about the current state of USSC authority over the other branches of government, both at the federal and state levels.

The answer to all questions seems to be "Marbury v. Madison," and the discussion is over. One may not point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives the USSC the extraordinary power to overturn legislation, or to avoid the actions of Congress or the President. The three branches of government are supposed to be "equal."

Where does the Supreme Court get the authority to nullify the actions of the other two branches of the Federal Government, when its actions are based on (a) questionable readings of the statutes (the "exchanges established by the states" under the ACA), (b) dubious inferences from the Constitution itself (e.g., the non-existent "right of privacy"), or (c) the Court's own policy preferences (e.g., abortion, "affirmative action," and the death penalty)?

More importantly, what are the other two branches (and, in effect the American people) to do when the USSC "goes off the reservation," so to speak?

Consider the current "hot topic" of "birthright-citizenship." If Congress were to pass a law clarifying the original intent of the Authors of the 14th Amendment (as clearly shown in the legislative history) that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed to the offspring of people in the country illegally, there is a more than even chance that the Court would overturn the law, simply because a majority of the Justices just don't like it. That would put us in the situation where a Constitutional Amendment would be required, which is, if your will pardon the expression, bullshit.

One of the problems is lifetime-tenure of the justices, which clearly allows them to draw more and more out of touch with the actual humans who live in this country. Article III Section 1 states that the justices shall hold t heir office "...during good behavior..." Dare one point out that ignoring the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutes "bad" behavior? Could a justice be removed/impeached if tried and convicted in the Congress for blatant disregard of the Constitution?

How else to deal with a rogue Supreme Court?

Tell us then, genius, when you have a dispute over the meaning of words in a statute, who gets to decide what they mean? r.

Yeah they never quite think this through.

If not the Supreme Court who?

Congress?

You really want Congress to be the final word- with no possible review? How much do you trust Congress?

The States?

Do they really want California to be able to outlaw private gun ownership? Or for Texas to mandate Southern Baptism as the required and mandatory religion of Texas?

With no Supreme Court- who tells the States something is Unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court is not perfect- there are decisions i disagree with(Citizens United) but I have yet to see anyone come up with a better system. Possible term limits are worth exploring- and Congress I believe could add term limits if it wanted.

 

[Shikica]

What if legislation is signed that goes against the constitution?

To me that's a perfect example of how the courts should have power to overturn legislation. It protects us from corrupt congressmen that slip in laws that are truly evil. Of course the USSC is corrupt as well but in theory this is how it should work

 

[paddymurphy]

There is a lot of philosophical debate about the current state of USSC authority over the other branches of government, both at the federal and state levels.

The answer to all questions seems to be "Marbury v. Madison," and the discussion is over. One may not point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives the USSC the extraordinary power to overturn legislation, or to avoid the actions of Congress or the President. The three branches of government are supposed to be "equal."

Where does the Supreme Court get the authority to nullify the actions of the other two branches of the Federal Government, when its actions are based on (a) questionable readings of the statutes (the "exchanges established by the states" under the ACA), (b) dubious inferences from the Constitution itself (e.g., the non-existent "right of privacy"), or (c) the Court's own policy preferences (e.g., abortion, "affirmative action," and the death penalty)?

More importantly, what are the other two branches (and, in effect the American people) to do when the USSC "goes off the reservation," so to speak?

Consider the current "hot topic" of "birthright-citizenship." If Congress were to pass a law clarifying the original intent of the Authors of the 14th Amendment (as clearly shown in the legislative history) that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed to the offspring of people in the country illegally, there is a more than even chance that the Court would overturn the law, simply because a majority of the Justices just don't like it. That would put us in the situation where a Constitutional Amendment would be required, which is, if your will pardon the expression, bullshit.

One of the problems is lifetime-tenure of the justices, which clearly allows them to draw more and more out of touch with the actual humans who live in this country. Article III Section 1 states that the justices shall hold t heir office "...during good behavior..." Dare one point out that ignoring the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutes "bad" behavior? Could a justice be removed/impeached if tried and convicted in the Congress for blatant disregard of the Constitution?

How else to deal with a rogue Supreme Court?

Tell us then, genius, when you have a dispute over the meaning of words in a statute, who gets to decide what they mean? r.

Yeah they never quite think this through.

If not the Supreme Court who?

Congress?

You really want Congress to be the final word- with no possible review? How much do you trust Congress?

The States?

Do they really want California to be able to outlaw private gun ownership? Or for Texas to mandate Southern Baptism as the required and mandatory religion of Texas?

With no Supreme Court- who tells the States something is Unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court is not perfect- there are decisions i disagree with(Citizens United) but I have yet to see anyone come up with a better system. Possible term limits are worth exploring- and Congress I believe could add term limits if it wanted.

The also seem to not understand what co-equal branches of government means. Essentially, all three branches of government have to agree that a law is constitutional. If to many people in Congress do not think a proposed law is constitutional, it does not pass. If the President does not think it is constitutional, he or she can veto it. Of the Supreme Court does not think it is constitutional, they strike it down. Then, it is up to the people to secure an Amendment to the Constitution if they don't like the ruling. Does not happen often, but is really the path that the founders wanted us to take to change our fundamental law.

 

[Shikica]

There is a lot of philosophical debate about the current state of USSC authority over the other branches of government, both at the federal and state levels.

The answer to all questions seems to be "Marbury v. Madison," and the discussion is over. One may not point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives the USSC the extraordinary power to overturn legislation, or to avoid the actions of Congress or the President. The three branches of government are supposed to be "equal."

Where does the Supreme Court get the authority to nullify the actions of the other two branches of the Federal Government, when its actions are based on (a) questionable readings of the statutes (the "exchanges established by the states" under the ACA), (b) dubious inferences from the Constitution itself (e.g., the non-existent "right of privacy"), or (c) the Court's own policy preferences (e.g., abortion, "affirmative action," and the death penalty)?

More importantly, what are the other two branches (and, in effect the American people) to do when the USSC "goes off the reservation," so to speak?

Consider the current "hot topic" of "birthright-citizenship." If Congress were to pass a law clarifying the original intent of the Authors of the 14th Amendment (as clearly shown in the legislative history) that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed to the offspring of people in the country illegally, there is a more than even chance that the Court would overturn the law, simply because a majority of the Justices just don't like it. That would put us in the situation where a Constitutional Amendment would be required, which is, if your will pardon the expression, bullshit.

One of the problems is lifetime-tenure of the justices, which clearly allows them to draw more and more out of touch with the actual humans who live in this country. Article III Section 1 states that the justices shall hold t heir office "...during good behavior..." Dare one point out that ignoring the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutes "bad" behavior? Could a justice be removed/impeached if tried and convicted in the Congress for blatant disregard of the Constitution?

How else to deal with a rogue Supreme Court?

Tell us then, genius, when you have a dispute over the meaning of words in a statute, who gets to decide what they mean? The Democrats who wrote and passed the health care law and the President who was implementing it agreed that the words of the statute allowed for the feds to set up exchanges in the states. Some private citizens disagreed and sued. They sued in a Court. A court is where, guess what, disputes over the meaning of statutes and regulations and contracts are decided. That is what Courts do. Appellate Courts decide if the lower Courts were correct in their determination of the meaning of the words in a statute. Ultimately, the "Supreme" Court (there is a reason it is called Supreme) has to resolve, finally, those questions. The authority to do that is not disputed by anyone. It is provided for explicitly in the constitution, Article III, which gives the Supreme Court appellate power over the decisions of inferior courts. It also stems from the Supremacy clause which makes federal law and the constitution supreme over state law. Courts are always faced with disputes over the meaning of words in laws and the constitution. Often they are faced with folks like you who lie about things to advance their claims. This "the original intent of the Authors of the 14th Amendment (as clearly shown in the legislative history) that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed to the offspring of people in the country illegally." is a lie. There is no evidence that the authors of the 14th ever even considered what affect it would have on those in the country illegally. Know why? There were no laws on immigration then. No one was here "illegally" since there was no law limiting who could some in.

There is a right to privacy in the constitution. The Constitution protects the right to liberty. Liberty means the freedom to make decisions about your life without governmental intrusion. Decisions like who you marry, what religion you practice, what medical care you will undergo, etc. And there were no "policy" decisions regarding affirmative action, abortion or the death penalty. As to each, they ruled on the constitution. The ignorance of folks like you about the constitution is astounding. It is a shame that they do not make you take a test about the constitution before letting folks like you vote. You are the epitome of the low information voter.

May I just add that the original founders of the United States and the early holders of government positions in the United States were all enthusiastic about the opinion that those who are born from illegal immigrants are rightful citizens. Why do I know this? Becuase look at US expansionism - Look at how we took over texas and virtually every other area owned by anglos and the spanish at the time.

 

[paddymurphy]

There is a lot of philosophical debate about the current state of USSC authority over the other branches of government, both at the federal and state levels.

The answer to all questions seems to be "Marbury v. Madison," and the discussion is over. One may not point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives the USSC the extraordinary power to overturn legislation, or to avoid the actions of Congress or the President. The three branches of government are supposed to be "equal."

Where does the Supreme Court get the authority to nullify the actions of the other two branches of the Federal Government, when its actions are based on (a) questionable readings of the statutes (the "exchanges established by the states" under the ACA), (b) dubious inferences from the Constitution itself (e.g., the non-existent "right of privacy"), or (c) the Court's own policy preferences (e.g., abortion, "affirmative action," and the death penalty)?

More importantly, what are the other two branches (and, in effect the American people) to do when the USSC "goes off the reservation," so to speak?

Consider the current "hot topic" of "birthright-citizenship." If Congress were to pass a law clarifying the original intent of the Authors of the 14th Amendment (as clearly shown in the legislative history) that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed to the offspring of people in the country illegally, there is a more than even chance that the Court would overturn the law, simply because a majority of the Justices just don't like it. That would put us in the situation where a Constitutional Amendment would be required, which is, if your will pardon the expression, bullshit.

One of the problems is lifetime-tenure of the justices, which clearly allows them to draw more and more out of touch with the actual humans who live in this country. Article III Section 1 states that the justices shall hold t heir office "...during good behavior..." Dare one point out that ignoring the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutes "bad" behavior? Could a justice be removed/impeached if tried and convicted in the Congress for blatant disregard of the Constitution?

How else to deal with a rogue Supreme Court?

Tell us then, genius, when you have a dispute over the meaning of words in a statute, who gets to decide what they mean? The Democrats who wrote and passed the health care law and the President who was implementing it agreed that the words of the statute allowed for the feds to set up exchanges in the states. Some private citizens disagreed and sued. They sued in a Court. A court is where, guess what, disputes over the meaning of statutes and regulations and contracts are decided. That is what Courts do. Appellate Courts decide if the lower Courts were correct in their determination of the meaning of the words in a statute. Ultimately, the "Supreme" Court (there is a reason it is called Supreme) has to resolve, finally, those questions. The authority to do that is not disputed by anyone. It is provided for explicitly in the constitution, Article III, which gives the Supreme Court appellate power over the decisions of inferior courts. It also stems from the Supremacy clause which makes federal law and the constitution supreme over state law. Courts are always faced with disputes over the meaning of words in laws and the constitution. Often they are faced with folks like you who lie about things to advance their claims. This "the original intent of the Authors of the 14th Amendment (as clearly shown in the legislative history) that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed to the offspring of people in the country illegally." is a lie. There is no evidence that the authors of the 14th ever even considered what affect it would have on those in the country illegally. Know why? There were no laws on immigration then. No one was here "illegally" since there was no law limiting who could some in.

There is a right to privacy in the constitution. The Constitution protects the right to liberty. Liberty means the freedom to make decisions about your life without governmental intrusion. Decisions like who you marry, what religion you practice, what medical care you will undergo, etc. And there were no "policy" decisions regarding affirmative action, abortion or the death penalty. As to each, they ruled on the constitution. The ignorance of folks like you about the constitution is astounding. It is a shame that they do not make you take a test about the constitution before letting folks like you vote. You are the epitome of the low information voter.

May I just add that the original founders of the United States and the early holders of government positions in the United States were all enthusiastic about the opinion that those who are born from illegal immigrants are rightful citizens. Why do I know this? Becuase look at US expansionism - Look at how we took over texas and virtually every other area owned by anglos and the spanish at the time.

True except for the fact that there were no laws actually restricting immigration until the latter part of the 19th century. They needed immigration to grow.

 

[Shikica]

There is a lot of philosophical debate about the current state of USSC authority over the other branches of government, both at the federal and state levels.

The answer to all questions seems to be "Marbury v. Madison," and the discussion is over. One may not point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives the USSC the extraordinary power to overturn legislation, or to avoid the actions of Congress or the President. The three branches of government are supposed to be "equal."

Where does the Supreme Court get the authority to nullify the actions of the other two branches of the Federal Government, when its actions are based on (a) questionable readings of the statutes (the "exchanges established by the states" under the ACA), (b) dubious inferences from the Constitution itself (e.g., the non-existent "right of privacy"), or (c) the Court's own policy preferences (e.g., abortion, "affirmative action," and the death penalty)?

More importantly, what are the other two branches (and, in effect the American people) to do when the USSC "goes off the reservation," so to speak?

Consider the current "hot topic" of "birthright-citizenship." If Congress were to pass a law clarifying the original intent of the Authors of the 14th Amendment (as clearly shown in the legislative history) that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed to the offspring of people in the country illegally, there is a more than even chance that the Court would overturn the law, simply because a majority of the Justices just don't like it. That would put us in the situation where a Constitutional Amendment would be required, which is, if your will pardon the expression, bullshit.

One of the problems is lifetime-tenure of the justices, which clearly allows them to draw more and more out of touch with the actual humans who live in this country. Article III Section 1 states that the justices shall hold t heir office "...during good behavior..." Dare one point out that ignoring the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutes "bad" behavior? Could a justice be removed/impeached if tried and convicted in the Congress for blatant disregard of the Constitution?

How else to deal with a rogue Supreme Court?

Tell us then, genius, when you have a dispute over the meaning of words in a statute, who gets to decide what they mean? The Democrats who wrote and passed the health care law and the President who was implementing it agreed that the words of the statute allowed for the feds to set up exchanges in the states. Some private citizens disagreed and sued. They sued in a Court. A court is where, guess what, disputes over the meaning of statutes and regulations and contracts are decided. That is what Courts do. Appellate Courts decide if the lower Courts were correct in their determination of the meaning of the words in a statute. Ultimately, the "Supreme" Court (there is a reason it is called Supreme) has to resolve, finally, those questions. The authority to do that is not disputed by anyone. It is provided for explicitly in the constitution, Article III, which gives the Supreme Court appellate power over the decisions of inferior courts. It also stems from the Supremacy clause which makes federal law and the constitution supreme over state law. Courts are always faced with disputes over the meaning of words in laws and the constitution. Often they are faced with folks like you who lie about things to advance their claims. This "the original intent of the Authors of the 14th Amendment (as clearly shown in the legislative history) that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed to the offspring of people in the country illegally." is a lie. There is no evidence that the authors of the 14th ever even considered what affect it would have on those in the country illegally. Know why? There were no laws on immigration then. No one was here "illegally" since there was no law limiting who could some in.

There is a right to privacy in the constitution. The Constitution protects the right to liberty. Liberty means the freedom to make decisions about your life without governmental intrusion. Decisions like who you marry, what religion you practice, what medical care you will undergo, etc. And there were no "policy" decisions regarding affirmative action, abortion or the death penalty. As to each, they ruled on the constitution. The ignorance of folks like you about the constitution is astounding. It is a shame that they do not make you take a test about the constitution before letting folks like you vote. You are the epitome of the low information voter.

May I just add that the original founders of the United States and the early holders of government positions in the United States were all enthusiastic about the opinion that those who are born from illegal immigrants are rightful citizens. Why do I know this? Becuase look at US expansionism - Look at how we took over texas and virtually every other area owned by anglos and the spanish at the time.

True except for the fact that there were no laws actually restricting immigration until the latter part of the 19th century. They needed immigration to grow.

It's true that normally the americans weren't "illegal" immigrants although they were never welcome and often times were discouraged from coming altogether. But had there been robust illegal immigration laws in place in colonial spain/france/britian then they would have still supported the position I mentioned.

Also "they needed immigration to grow" doesn't do justice the fact that by grow we mean imperialism, massacres, and outright disrespect for international laws and signed treaties. Immigration is a natural part of human societies imo, but when governments use immigration as a political weapon that is when the governments ought to be punished.