Only over the questions that come before them, but they have no power to dictate law or otherwise function as an oligarchy. Are you asking the question seriously, or are you just being argumentative? Do you want to bow your head and surrender your firearms if the Supreme Court concluded that the signers only mean to refer to flintlock weapons? (You are aware that the Congress can direct how the Supreme Court should decide cases? And that the Executive, like President Jackson, can say "That's your verdict. Enforce it, if you can.")
That's literally what they were created to do by the constitution.
I am very much asking this questions seriously. I'm not saying that the SC is infallible, but what evidence shows that what they're saying here is wrong? You say it was a term in international law at the time, but is it confirmed that's what is meant here?
No, the Constitution created the Supreme Court to try cases arising either as appeals or as challenges to the Constitution. They get to make their decisions. But Congress can circumscribe the decisions they can make, and the Court has no power of enforcement. The Court was not created to legislate from the bench, although they have been doing so by the allowance of a corrupt legislature and executive. (For example of a wrong decision, the Dred Scott case was decided in violation of the language of the Constitution.)
The "evidence" is the plain language of the Constitution AND the legal terminology of the time. Or do you believe in an "evolving" Constitution that tracks what the popular fads are in the meaning of words?
The plain language of the constitution only says "natural born citizens." It makes no specific mention of the required nationalities of the parents. If we're going by plain language, then that's all we have to go on. Where is the phrase "natural born" specified to include the nationalities of the parents?
"No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .” "
The basic idea is that the parents, or at least the father, should have been a citizen of the United States at the time of birth. The intent was to preclude any filial loyalties (or obligations) to another country. Much of the contemporary argument seeks to vitiate this objective.
Only over the questions that come before them, but they have no power to dictate law or otherwise function as an oligarchy. Are you asking the question seriously, or are you just being argumentative? Do you want to bow your head and surrender your firearms if the Supreme Court concluded that the signers only mean to refer to flintlock weapons? (You are aware that the Congress can direct how the Supreme Court should decide cases? And that the Executive, like President Jackson, can say "That's your verdict. Enforce it, if you can.")
That's literally what they were created to do by the constitution.
I am very much asking this questions seriously. I'm not saying that the SC is infallible, but what evidence shows that what they're saying here is wrong? You say it was a term in international law at the time, but is it confirmed that's what is meant here?
No, the Constitution created the Supreme Court to try cases arising either as appeals or as challenges to the Constitution. They get to make their decisions. But Congress can circumscribe the decisions they can make, and the Court has no power of enforcement. The Court was not created to legislate from the bench, although they have been doing so by the allowance of a corrupt legislature and executive. (For example of a wrong decision, the Dred Scott case was decided in violation of the language of the Constitution.)
The "evidence" is the plain language of the Constitution AND the legal terminology of the time. Or do you believe in an "evolving" Constitution that tracks what the popular fads are in the meaning of words?
The plain language of the constitution only says "natural born citizens." It makes no specific mention of the required nationalities of the parents. If we're going by plain language, then that's all we have to go on. Where is the phrase "natural born" specified to include the nationalities of the parents?
Where a word's meaning is at issue, it is hard to credit it with being "plain." But a reasonable treatment is at https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-128/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ in the paragraph involving footnote 8 and 9:
"No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .” "
The basic idea is that the parents, or at least the father, should have been a citizen of the United States at the time of birth. The intent was to preclude any filial loyalties (or obligations) to another country. Much of the contemporary argument seeks to vitiate this objective.