i recall the hearing is about whether a judge can apply the ban across the entire country, not the right in itself.
The U.S. Supreme Court simply wants to firmly and conclusively bat down the most recent claims attempting to undermine the 14th Amendment. They took the case to define an absolute decision on an important matter rather than leaving it hanging or in the hands of a lower court.
I believe you are correct. So this case is actually not about birthright citizenship at all -- merely about the scope of a lower courts decision (if it applies nationwide). TreeFrog in simply trying to intertwine the issue and claim the case is about "jurisdiction of Congress to exempt anchor babies from the 14th Amendment" -- it is not.
Okay. Let's stop here for the day, shall we? You are flying without a brain. Do you not know what the 14th birthright clause says. It starts by saying all persons "either born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction. It already covers the fact that you have to be born here or naturalized. So I give you a TOTAL FAIL in your flaccid attempt to answer my question. Why the hell is "subject to jurisdiction" language even included if all you to do is be born here or naturalized. Why is that additional qualifier needed if the drafters did not contemplate that there were or could be circumstances where just being born is not enough? Maybe stop there. You are embarrassing yourself. Wait for AI to get further along and totally answer for you.
Except if the court felt that the lower court was the final answer they would affirm that it should/could be applied nationwide. If they want to hold off on that and let other cases come up and take it at the supreme court potentially they would tamp it down and not let it be the law of the entire land just yet. It needs to work its way up. Note further that at the oral arguments the Justices worked over the issue of birthright citizenship when they could have taken a narrower path and just talked about the issue of courts binding other courts nationwide. They clearly are wrestling with the birthright issue as part of this. Maybe they will ultimately take it up but they engaging with it and might be preparing for full review. The court is never going to decide that the president alone can change anything. The way it would come about is that the court might decline to decide the issue by saying that it is a matter for congress to decide. That Congress can decide who is an is not subject to the jurisdiction. Then it becomes a legislative issue with the courts saying you can do it but you have to get the votes. I have already covered the fact that Congress already approves all the various overseas citizenship birth eligibility issues and has changed them several times. Which I guess you reject or something. Whatever, but congress already dabbles in some of this. Some of the justices were really leaning into the birthright issue even though the premise of the case was allegedly just about applying a decision nationwide. Kavanaugh even went off the reservation a little and suggest that they might bring the birthright case back again as a class action to make it stronger. Yeh, there is more going on there than meets the eye. Some of the justices want at the birthright issue full on.
Birthright citizenship (jus soli) was about getting bums on seats in an empty country (native Americans excepted) efficiently. This is why much of the Americas (continent) have or had it. One can argue that it is now a nation-building relic, but not that is was some kind of mistake. "Subject to jurisdiction" is to exclude children of foreign diplomats who having diplomatic immunity, are not subject to jurisdiction being under their own country.