In appellate work one side typically argues the judge followed the law and applied the correct facts. (typically you can't argue fact finding on appeal.) The side moving for the appeal has a choice. 1. The judge did not follow the law. 2. The law must change because its bad. (this is a tough one and leads to further litigation) or 3. Carve out the fact pattern... distinguish the facts of your case from the previous cases thereby allowing the court to make new law (a new ruling) or limit the old ruling to narrow set of fact patterns... etc. You win by getting new law or a "carve out" for your facts from the old line of cases. Hence the court very easily carve all previous cases of citizenship.
Again, a theory and your opinion. Do you have a relevant example to back up this claim that scotus will carve out a constitutional protection creating two distinct classes with equal qualifications? The last time I can think of this was Dred Scott and that is how we got here in the first place.
vast majority of Americans agree, of course. But it can't be done with an executive order!!! And thank god for that! We need a President who understands how things must be done under the rule of law. Otherwise you don't have a democracy, as defective as that form of government is, you have an autocracy, which is even worse.