Ohh That's Rich - birthright citizenship 6-3 to 5-4 ruling explained

[Ms. Toad]

39. Under current law, yes.

Because 5 of the justices said the order was unconstitutional - and that the individuals Trump would exclude are birthright citizens by virtue of the constitution. Kavanaugh dissented in part because he believes their citizenship is statutory - and if it is statutory, it can be changed by statue.

So if a law is passed today, and interpreted by the same court, without any justices changing their understanding of the 14th amendment, it would be declared unconstitutional. But that's a lot of ifs, which is the reason courts don't issue advisory opinions. Nothing is certain until all of the justices have heard a specific case, read all of the draft opinions, and issued their orders.

But the contention you made, to which I responded, had nothing to do with that hypothetical case. You claimed that his dissent demonstrated he did not understand that Congress cannot change the Constitution.

He said no such thing (as I have repeatedly explained), and nothing Janai Nelson said suggests she believes Kavanaugh's dissent expresses a belief that Congress can override the Constitution. She was expressing an opinion on a potential new law by Congress, not explaining Kavanaugh's dissent.