Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Boss]

Congress has no authority to change the interpretation of the Constitution.

Yes they can, when the "interpretation" directly contradicts an enumerated power. Let's think of another enumerated power... To lay and collect taxes... Let's imagine the SCOTUS ruled that Congress cannot do this because it unconstitutionally violates our right to pursue happiness. It doesn't matter how much cheering from the masses would ensue, or how liberating it would feel to have the Court rule Federal taxation is unconstitutional... it wouldn't be allowed to stand.

We are NOT some oligarchy controlled by 9 people on a court. We have three co-equal branches of government. Article 3 specifically lays out the role of the Supreme Court and establishes its limited power of judicial review. It is not granted some SUPERIOR power over the other branches. It especially doesn't have power over the will of the people.

Article 3 Section 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

 

[paddymurphy]

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.

"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.

If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.

But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.

This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.

You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.

All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.

So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Children born in Honduras to American citizen soldiers are not born U.S. citizens based upon the 14th Amendment- because- of course- they are not born in the United States.

They are born U.S. citizens based upon being born to U.S. citizens

As the court noted in Wong Kim Ark- jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means the same thing in the first section.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- according to the Constitution is a U.S. citizen.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Correct. And my argument remains, children of two foreign born parents in our country illegally, are not "subject to jurisdiction" and do not qualify. You argue that "subject to jurisdiction" essentially means the same as "within the jurisdiction of law." As of yet, you've posted no finding from any court or argument from any legitimate scholar that the Constitution says what you claim.

You continue to cite irrelevant cases. Wong Kim Ark was regarding LEGAL immigrants and not illegal aliens. A specific distinction that was actually made in the argument for Wong. Even the fact that the Wong case exists is evidence the Constitution doesn't automatically grant birthright citizenship-- if it did, there would have been no case.

Plyler is about due process rights when you are within the legal jurisdiction of the US. And again, the existence of the case proves that this issue of "subject to jurisdiction" is not as easy-peasy cut and dry as you proclaim it to be.

So far-- NO ONE has offered a SCOTUS or case law example of "instant citizenship by birth" to illegal alien parents. All we have are your liberal opinions, which I am quite sure are shared by Justices Sotomayor, Kegan, Ginsberg and probably Bryer. I am sure that Scalia, Alito and Thomas disagree... Kennedy and Roberts? Who knows? If Roberts can find a way to rewrite the Constitution so that it fits the liberal narrative, he will do it.... we've seen that happen.

But even in the event SCOTUS should rule in such a case, the Congress retains plenary power because of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, and the 14th Amendment Section 5. So ultimately, the decision rests with Congress, not SCOTUS.

The two times since Wong when the Supreme Court addressed this they unanimously, (i.e. both the conservative and liberal judges agreed) that the child of illegal immigrants born here was a US Citizen.

 

[Syriusly]

Congress has no authority to change the interpretation of the Constitution.

Yes they can, when the "interpretation" directly contradicts an enumerated power. Let's think of another enumerated power... To lay and collect taxes... Let's imagine the SCOTUS ruled that Congress cannot do this because it unconstitutionally violates our right to pursue happiness. It doesn't matter how much cheering from the masses would ensue, or how liberating it would feel to have the Court rule Federal taxation is unconstitutional... it wouldn't be allowed to stand..

The Constitution provides that Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding taxation- and Naturalization.

That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court can't find that the legislation itself may be unconstitutional- for instance if Congress passed a law to tax Christians more than Jews.

Likewise- Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding Naturalization- which is the process whereby someone who is not an American citizen becomes an American citizen. The Court could find a Naturalization law unconstitutional based though I can't really think of any actual Naturalization law which could be unconstitutional.

Unless of course- Congress pretended that a law dealing with natural born American citizens was a Naturalization issue- which it is not.

Such as if Congress tried to pass a law saying that natural born American citizens are not American citizens.

 

[Boss]

The two times since Wong when the Supreme Court addressed this they unanimously, (i.e. both the conservative and liberal judges agreed) that the child of illegal immigrants born here was a US Citizen.

This is simply not true just because you typed it. Sorry.

 

[Syriusly]

Congress has no authority to change the interpretation of the Constitution.

We are NOT some oligarchy controlled by 9 people on a court. We have three co-equal branches of government. Article 3 specifically lays out the role of the Supreme Court and establishes its limited power of judicial review. It is not granted some SUPERIOR power over the other branches. It especially doesn't have power over the will of the people.
.

The Supreme Court has no authority to write any legislation at all- it has no Superior power- it can only decide if a law- or action- by either the Legislative- or Executive- is unconstitutional or not.

What the Supreme Court does do is interpret the Constitution when there are interpretive questions regarding the Constitution- and that it did in both Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe.

Oh and the people have the authority to change the Constitution if the people don't like how it is written. The 13th Amendment was in part the 'people' overriding a Supreme Court decision.

 

[paddymurphy]

The two times since Wong when the Supreme Court addressed this they unanimously, (i.e. both the conservative and liberal judges agreed) that the child of illegal immigrants born here was a US Citizen.

This is simply not true just because you typed it. Sorry.

It is true because I and others posted the cases and the links to those cases. You offer only your opinions.

 

[Syriusly]

The two times since Wong when the Supreme Court addressed this they unanimously, (i.e. both the conservative and liberal judges agreed) that the child of illegal immigrants born here was a US Citizen.

This is simply not true just because you typed it. Sorry.

Not because he typed it- because its true.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

 

[Syriusly]

Naturalization is not aka citizenship.

There are two kinds of citizenship mentioned in the Constitution- 'natural born'- i.e. anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction- and 'naturalized'- made citizens by act of Congress.

No, there is only one kind of citizenship. The kind Congress has defined by statute. Naturalization is the process by which a foreigner becomes a citizen. Nothing in the Constitution or the 14th, circumvents Congressional plenary power. In fact, Section 6 of the 14th specifically delegates Congress to legislate any aspect of the amendment. This is why SCOTUS could not use the 14th to confer birthright citizenship on Native Americans. It took an act of Congress.

There are two kinds of citizenship.

Natural Born citizen- as mentioned in the Constitution- and all others- which are Naturalized hence
Naturalized Citizens- Congress is given authority to create rules for Naturalization in the Constitution- but not rules for Natural Born Citizens.

Natural Born citizens can be elected President- and cannot have their citizenship stripped from them.
Naturalized citizens cannot be elected President- and can have their citizenship stripped from them.

This is really basic stuff.

The Supreme Court correctly interpreted the 14th Amendment as excluding who it did- which included at the time specific Native Americans. Congress passed a law changing the status of those Native Americans so that they fell under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.

So Boss- you still want to argue that there is only 'one kind of citizenship'?

 

[Syriusly]

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.

"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.

If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.

But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.

This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.

You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.

All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.

So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Children born in Honduras to American citizen soldiers are not born U.S. citizens based upon the 14th Amendment- because- of course- they are not born in the United States.

They are born U.S. citizens based upon being born to U.S. citizens

As the court noted in Wong Kim Ark- jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means the same thing in the first section.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- according to the Constitution is a U.S. citizen.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Correct. And my argument remains, children of two foreign born parents in our country illegally, are not "subject to jurisdiction" and do not qualify. You argue that "subject to jurisdiction" essentially means the same as "within the jurisdiction of law." As of yet, you've posted no finding from any court or argument from any legitimate scholar that the Constitution says what you claim.

Actually I have posted Wong Kim Ark saying exactly that repeatedly.

I will repost what Wong Kim Ark said about 'jurisdiction' again- and you will ignore it- again

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Wong Kim Ark specifically stated that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means the same thing as 'within the jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment

Plyler v. Doe stated that illegal aliens within the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Combine the two- and there is the complete validation of the actual accepted policy in effect today regarding a child born in the United States.

Since Boss is ignoring when he is refuted- might as well repost it

Actually I have posted Wong Kim Ark saying exactly that repeatedly.

I will repost what Wong Kim Ark said about 'jurisdiction' again- and you will ignore it- again

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Wong Kim Ark specifically stated that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means the same thing as 'within the jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment

Plyler v. Doe stated that illegal aliens within the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Combine the two- and there is the complete validation of the actual accepted policy in effect today regarding a child born in the United States.

 

[Boss]

Congress has no authority to change the interpretation of the Constitution.

Yes they can, when the "interpretation" directly contradicts an enumerated power. Let's think of another enumerated power... To lay and collect taxes... Let's imagine the SCOTUS ruled that Congress cannot do this because it unconstitutionally violates our right to pursue happiness. It doesn't matter how much cheering from the masses would ensue, or how liberating it would feel to have the Court rule Federal taxation is unconstitutional... it wouldn't be allowed to stand..

The Constitution provides that Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding taxation- and Naturalization.

That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court can't find that the legislation itself may be unconstitutional- for instance if Congress passed a law to tax Christians more than Jews.

Likewise- Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding Naturalization- which is the process whereby someone who is not an American citizen becomes an American citizen. The Court could find a Naturalization law unconstitutional based though I can't really think of any actual Naturalization law which could be unconstitutional.

Unless of course- Congress pretended that a law dealing with natural born American citizens was a Naturalization issue- which it is not.

Such as if Congress tried to pass a law saying that natural born American citizens are not American citizens.

There is no "natural born citizen" act or amendment and it's not in the Constitution. You are trying to create a right to natural born citizenship via the 14th, but you are misinterpreting the 14th. Only Congress has the power to determine who is a citizen, not the courts. The court may find that congress has inadvertently conferred citizenship by statute or action, which was the case in all the SCOTUS examples raised.

 

[Syriusly]

Congress has no authority to change the interpretation of the Constitution.

Yes they can, when the "interpretation" directly contradicts an enumerated power. Let's think of another enumerated power... To lay and collect taxes... Let's imagine the SCOTUS ruled that Congress cannot do this because it unconstitutionally violates our right to pursue happiness. It doesn't matter how much cheering from the masses would ensue, or how liberating it would feel to have the Court rule Federal taxation is unconstitutional... it wouldn't be allowed to stand..

The Constitution provides that Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding taxation- and Naturalization.

That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court can't find that the legislation itself may be unconstitutional- for instance if Congress passed a law to tax Christians more than Jews.

Likewise- Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding Naturalization- which is the process whereby someone who is not an American citizen becomes an American citizen. The Court could find a Naturalization law unconstitutional based though I can't really think of any actual Naturalization law which could be unconstitutional.

Unless of course- Congress pretended that a law dealing with natural born American citizens was a Naturalization issue- which it is not.

Such as if Congress tried to pass a law saying that natural born American citizens are not American citizens.

There is no "natural born citizen" act or amendment and it's not in the Constitution. You are trying to create a right to natural born citizenship via the 14th, but you are misinterpreting the 14th. Only Congress has the power to determine who is a citizen, not the courts. The court may find that congress has inadvertently conferred citizenship by statute or action, which was the case in all the SCOTUS examples raised.

Sigh.

Only Congress can pass laws regarding citizenship by naturalization. Citizenship by birth is natural born citizenship- and mentioned in the Constitution.

There is no 'natural born citizen' act because 'natural born citizen' exists in the Constitution- and pre-dates the Constitution

Likewise- Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding Naturalization- which is the process whereby someone who is not an American citizen becomes an American citizen. The Court could find a Naturalization law unconstitutional based though I can't really think of any actual Naturalization law which could be unconstitutional.

Unless of course- Congress pretended that a law dealing with natural born American citizens was a Naturalization issue- which it is not.

Such as if Congress tried to pass a law saying that natural born American citizens are not American citizens.

 

[Boss]

Congress has no authority to change the interpretation of the Constitution.

We are NOT some oligarchy controlled by 9 people on a court. We have three co-equal branches of government. Article 3 specifically lays out the role of the Supreme Court and establishes its limited power of judicial review. It is not granted some SUPERIOR power over the other branches. It especially doesn't have power over the will of the people.
.

The Supreme Court has no authority to write any legislation at all- it has no Superior power- it can only decide if a law- or action- by either the Legislative- or Executive- is unconstitutional or not.

What the Supreme Court does do is interpret the Constitution when there are interpretive questions regarding the Constitution- and that it did in both Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe.

Oh and the people have the authority to change the Constitution if the people don't like how it is written. The 13th Amendment was in part the 'people' overriding a Supreme Court decision.

Yes, I understand the SCOTUS can't write legislation. It also can't fundamentally change the nature of our government with it's rulings. The 13th, 14th and 15th.. as with virtually all amendments, 'overrides' any previous SCOTUS decision. In many cases, the amendment process might be the only way to override a SCOTUS decision, but it is not the only way. Congress can rewrite legislation found unconstitutional to address whatever problem the SCOTUS had. And cases before SCOTUS have to arise from appellate jurisdiction... in other words, they can't up and proactively decide to find a Congressional act unconstitutional on the basis of politics. A case has to be brought by an injured party, there has to be a legitimate issue of constitutional rights, it has to go through the appeals process and work it's way up to SCOTUS and they have to accept the case before they rule.

 

[Boss]

There is no 'natural born citizen' act because 'natural born citizen' exists in the Constitution- and pre-dates the Constitution

Please show me where this is at in the Constitution?

 

[Syriusly]

Congress has no authority to change the interpretation of the Constitution.

Yes they can, when the "interpretation" directly contradicts an enumerated power. Let's think of another enumerated power... To lay and collect taxes... Let's imagine the SCOTUS ruled that Congress cannot do this because it unconstitutionally violates our right to pursue happiness. It doesn't matter how much cheering from the masses would ensue, or how liberating it would feel to have the Court rule Federal taxation is unconstitutional... it wouldn't be allowed to stand..

The Constitution provides that Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding taxation- and Naturalization.

That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court can't find that the legislation itself may be unconstitutional- for instance if Congress passed a law to tax Christians more than Jews.

Likewise- Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding Naturalization- which is the process whereby someone who is not an American citizen becomes an American citizen. The Court could find a Naturalization law unconstitutional based though I can't really think of any actual Naturalization law which could be unconstitutional.

Unless of course- Congress pretended that a law dealing with natural born American citizens was a Naturalization issue- which it is not.

Such as if Congress tried to pass a law saying that natural born American citizens are not American citizens.

. Only Congress has the power to determine who is a citizen, not the courts..

Congress has no authority to determine who is a citizen- Congress only has the authority to create legislation regarding citizenship of persons who were not born U.S. citizens- i.e. legislation.

That is why when the Senate passed a resolution recognizing Senator McCain as natural born and eligible to be President- it was not a legal interpretation- it was merely Congress giving their opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

Congress has no authority to change the interpretation of the Constitution.

We are NOT some oligarchy controlled by 9 people on a court. We have three co-equal branches of government. Article 3 specifically lays out the role of the Supreme Court and establishes its limited power of judicial review. It is not granted some SUPERIOR power over the other branches. It especially doesn't have power over the will of the people.
.

The Supreme Court has no authority to write any legislation at all- it has no Superior power- it can only decide if a law- or action- by either the Legislative- or Executive- is unconstitutional or not.

What the Supreme Court does do is interpret the Constitution when there are interpretive questions regarding the Constitution- and that it did in both Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe.

Oh and the people have the authority to change the Constitution if the people don't like how it is written. The 13th Amendment was in part the 'people' overriding a Supreme Court decision.

Yes, I understand the SCOTUS can't write legislation. It also can't fundamentally change the nature of our government with it's rulings. The 13th, 14th and 15th.. as with virtually all amendments, 'overrides' any previous SCOTUS decision. In many cases, the amendment process might be the only way to override a SCOTUS decision, but it is not the only way. Congress can rewrite legislation found unconstitutional to address whatever problem the SCOTUS had. And cases before SCOTUS have to arise from appellate jurisdiction... in other words, they can't up and proactively decide to find a Congressional act unconstitutional on the basis of politics. A case has to be brought by an injured party, there has to be a legitimate issue of constitutional rights, it has to go through the appeals process and work it's way up to SCOTUS and they have to accept the case before they rule.

In essence, I agree substantially with your entire post. I could quibble on the wording over a few points but generally I agree.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no 'natural born citizen' act because 'natural born citizen' exists in the Constitution- and pre-dates the Constitution

Please show me where this is at in the Constitution?

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Here is Congress's role in defining citizenship:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers

Nothing there about Congress being able to pass laws determining who is a natural born citizen.

.....

 

[Boss]

Likewise- Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding Naturalization...

Uhm NO! Congress has authority to write legislation regarding ANYTHING it pleases. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 gives Congress plenary power over Naturalization. That is NOT JUST the power to write legislation, it is the power to determine who is or isn't a citizen by law in the US. This is why it took 3 constitutional amendments to make slaves US citizens. The SCOTUS has no authority to confer citizenship on anyone... it does not matter if they think it's constitutional or not... it's not up to the court to decide. It is an enumerated power of Congress and is very different than other issues in recent times, like gay marriage or citizen corporations.

The Judicial branch cannot overstep their authority under the Constitution. It does not matter if the Court feels it's in the best interest to do so, or that they think something isn't Constitutional. It's like trying to argue that SCOTUS could have intervened with Bush's decision to invade Iraq and proclaimed his action unconstitutional. I'm sure plenty of liberals would have cheered such a thing back in the day but it didn't happen because SCOTUS has no such authority under the Constitution. It is an enumerated power of the Executive and Legislative branch and out of the purview of the court.

 

[Syriusly]

Likewise- Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding Naturalization...

Uhm NO! Congress has authority to write legislation regarding ANYTHING it pleases. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 gives Congress plenary power over Naturalization. That is NOT JUST the power to write legislation, it is the power to determine who is or isn't a citizen by law in the US. This is why it took 3 constitutional amendments to make slaves US citizens. The SCOTUS has no authority to confer citizenship on anyone... it does not matter if they think it's constitutional or not... it's not up to the court to decide. It is an enumerated power of Congress and is very different than other issues in recent times, like gay marriage or citizen corporations..

plenary power over Naturalization

What is "Naturalization"?
Naturalization
The process under federal law whereby a foreign-born person may be granted citizenship. In order to qualify for naturalization, an applicant must meet a number of statutory requirements,

What is NATURALIZATION? definition of NATURALIZATION (Black's Law Dictionary)
The act of adopting an alien into a nation, and clothing him with all the rights possessed by a natural- born citizen. Boyd v. Nebraska, 143

Congress has the authority under the Constitution to decide how an alien becomes a U.S. citizen.
The Constitution gives Congress no authority to determine who is a natural born citizen- i.e. a person born a U.S. citizen.

 

[Camp]

Congress has no authority to change the interpretation of the Constitution.

We are NOT some oligarchy controlled by 9 people on a court. We have three co-equal branches of government. Article 3 specifically lays out the role of the Supreme Court and establishes its limited power of judicial review. It is not granted some SUPERIOR power over the other branches. It especially doesn't have power over the will of the people.
.

The Supreme Court has no authority to write any legislation at all- it has no Superior power- it can only decide if a law- or action- by either the Legislative- or Executive- is unconstitutional or not.

What the Supreme Court does do is interpret the Constitution when there are interpretive questions regarding the Constitution- and that it did in both Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe.

Oh and the people have the authority to change the Constitution if the people don't like how it is written. The 13th Amendment was in part the 'people' overriding a Supreme Court decision.

Yes, I understand the SCOTUS can't write legislation. It also can't fundamentally change the nature of our government with it's rulings. The 13th, 14th and 15th.. as with virtually all amendments, 'overrides' any previous SCOTUS decision. In many cases, the amendment process might be the only way to override a SCOTUS decision, but it is not the only way. Congress can rewrite legislation found unconstitutional to address whatever problem the SCOTUS had. And cases before SCOTUS have to arise from appellate jurisdiction... in other words, they can't up and proactively decide to find a Congressional act unconstitutional on the basis of politics. A case has to be brought by an injured party, there has to be a legitimate issue of constitutional rights, it has to go through the appeals process and work it's way up to SCOTUS and they have to accept the case before they rule.

In essence, I agree substantially with your entire post. I could quibble on the wording over a few points but generally I agree.

The last sentence invalidates the comment and the primary claim of the post. It ignores the use of a Stay and injunctions or the ability and right of the SCOTUS to take on cases of it's choice in a system and method of it's choice. Consider the Florida election case.

 

[Syriusly]

Likewise- Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding Naturalization...

The SCOTUS has no authority to confer citizenship on anyone... it does not matter if they think it's constitutional or not..

You are right that the Supreme Court does not have the power to confer citizenship on anyone. The Supreme Court decides on Constitutional issues- such as Wong Kim Ark- when the Federal Government attempted to deprive a U.S. citizen of his rights by not allowing him entry into the United States.

The Supreme Court did not make him a citizen- he was already a citizen under the Constitution, and the Executive overstepped its authority under the Constitution by attempting to deny him is rights.