Latest Breaking News

Ms. Toad

(38,630 posts)

24. It is the interpretation of the constitution that is at issue.

Sun Mar 29, 2026, 10:29 PM

Sunday

The constitution always prevails over laws - AND - it is always up to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. There is no such thing as black letter law when it comes to the interpretation of the constitution. If the Supreme Court determines that Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship is correct, any law which contradicts it is unconstitutional.

Do I think it will interpret it as Trump suggests? No. My comments go to your assertions which seem to suggest that you believe the Supreme Court cannot interpret a provision of the constitution in a way which differs from how it has always been applied because it is "black letter law." Or that somehow a law passed by Congress is more controlling than the Constitution, or would prevent the Supreme Court from interpreting the provision in a way that is contrary to Congress' intent.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

LeftInTX BumRushDaShow

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Looking to limit birthright citizenship, Trump turns to an 1884 Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man [View all] BumRushDaShow Sunday OP

Can't wait to hear the arguments before the court. Fiendish Thingy Sunday #1

With THIS court? bluestarone Sunday #3

My guess, 7-2 against. Nt Fiendish Thingy Sunday #8

I know for sure bluestarone Sunday #10

Wow, had not seen your response but mine was exactly the same..."With this court?" Escurumbele Yesterday #32

Weak sauce. bucolic_frolic Sunday #2

Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 nullified Elk v Wilkins Historic NY Sunday #4

Since the SCOTUS doesn't care about "stare decisis" BumRushDaShow Sunday #6

But this isn't stare decicis Fiendish Thingy Sunday #9

Have you forgotten BumRushDaShow Sunday #11

Haven't forgotten at all Fiendish Thingy Sunday #12

"if birthright citizenship is revoked, can the reinstitution of slavery still be off limits?" BumRushDaShow Sunday #13

All the more reason why we must only elect Dem senators willing to kill the filibuster and expand the court Fiendish Thingy Sunday #15

Roe was focused on enforcement of the PRIVATE right for women to choose what to do with her own body BumRushDaShow Yesterday #30

And that horrific ruling will continue to stand Fiendish Thingy 23 hrs ago #36

That was the hope in 2022 BumRushDaShow 22 hrs ago #37

That's because Biden wanted to wait on the report from the bipartisan commission on court reform Fiendish Thingy 20 hrs ago #42

Not exactly. Ms. Toad Sunday #17

Birthright citizenship is also a law LeftInTX Sunday #23

It is the interpretation of the constitution that is at issue. Ms. Toad Sunday #24

I disagree Fiendish Thingy Sunday #25

"If the constitution says two term limit for a president, it doesn't mean three" BumRushDaShow Yesterday #33

But the Constitution doesn't say two terms for a p president. Ms. Toad Yesterday #34

Two means two, not three Fiendish Thingy 23 hrs ago #35

Again, you are reducing a paragraph to a single word. Ms. Toad 21 hrs ago #38

At this time, it's probably a moot point Fiendish Thingy 20 hrs ago #43

Except that the US constitution does NOT Farmer-Rick Yesterday #27

Article III of the constitution and Marbury v. Madison. Ms. Toad 21 hrs ago #39

In that Supreme Court ruling Farmer-Rick 21 hrs ago #41

I'll see Elk v. Wilkins, cloudbase Sunday #5

The funny thing is, Wong Ark was decided in 1898 NickB79 Sunday #18

Trump would have required both parents to be wnylib Sunday #7

Doesn't seem relevant Renew Deal Sunday #14

So at that time territories weren't considered "The US"? Callie1979 Sunday #20

That's the way I'm reading it Renew Deal Sunday #22

I Think They Are Talking About Indian Territories DallasNE Yesterday #28

If thats the story then it would seem to have zero meaning to today's case. Callie1979 Yesterday #31

What total bullshit. Another argument of convenience. Scalded Nun Sunday #16

Sounds like a "3/5ths" argument; seen as lesser individuals. Callie1979 Sunday #19

This case in an interpretation that is consistent with how the provision has always been interpreted. Ms. Toad Sunday #21

I'm not buying that argument Bayard Sunday #26

Call DHS Immediately! Nasruddin Yesterday #29

pedo and his henchmen should move to Tx or Fl and let the rest of us get our country back Marthe48 21 hrs ago #40