Form: Reply

–“At this point, with the legitimacy of the court in question, what other options do we the people have before resorting to pointy and fast object?”–

Not that my answer will assuage frustrations but, it’s not a question of the legitimacy of the court but that the wrong case has been brought before the court, and that the article in the constitution is stated such that it grants the feds the ability to regulate immigration (invasion).

But that article does not include the same limitations as were common at the time, limiting immigration to white christians and tolerance for some jews, when population density was quite small, and the open territory was quite large, and states had a great deal of sovereignty – that they were deprived of in response to the civil war.

This should have been the argument and that argument was not made.

In my view the court either made an error or the wrong case was brought before the court. In this case, the wrong case was brought fefore the court, and Ms Barrett took the constitution too literally, without including the originalism behind the text – this is the problem with textualism in the absence of originalism.

So, in my opinion both were true.

I think this is an excellent case for forcing the constitutional crisis that weil return sovereignty to the states, and restoring the sovereignty of the states over who may and who may not immigrate into them whether from outside or inside the federation.

I am not entirely sure that this wasn’t a consideration of the court, in that provoking a constitutional crisis will give the court opportunity to act more narrowly and clarify.

But I suspect it would involve attributing too much ability to the members of the court other than Alito and Thomas. Both of whom voted to grant the court authority to prevent a constitutional crisis on this matter.

I suspect that the next cycle of cases by Texas will find purchase in the court.

Cheers

Reply addressees: @SaitouHajime00 @NatLawInstitute