[josefritzishere]

It should not be tricky. The role of the supreme court is to enforce and interpret the constitution and federal law. What the constitution says in this case is unambiguous. It would very reductive to re-inturpret the 14th amendment after 150 years to mean something other than what it says.

[krapp]

> It would very reductive to re-inturpret the 14th amendment after 150 years to mean something other than what it says.

They did it with the Second Amendment in DC v. Heller. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court decides it means, nothing else, nothing more, nothing less.

[dctoedt]

"The Constitution means whatever the current majority of Supreme Court decides it means, ...."

FTFY

[wonderwonder]

You may not like it but OP is absolutely right. Whatever the supreme court rules stands. That’s exactly how the current system works unless laws are passed or the constitution is amended. Your response is childish and you should be embarrassed.

[dctoedt]

> Your response is childish and you should be embarrassed.

I’m mortified that I don’t measure up to the example you set for the rest of us. I shall strive earnestly to do better in my future endeavors.

[krapp]

I don't think they're disagreeing with me, just pointing out that the meaning of the Constitution is subject to a majority vote, which only further undermines the premise that any such thing as an unambiguous (much less "objective") interpretation exists because not even the entire Court always agrees with itself.

[josefritzishere]

Not disagreeing at all, just pointing out how extreme they would have to be to actually undo the 14th Amendment. Modern laws are highly complex and often genuinely challenging to read and understand. The Constitution is very readable even for lay people. Re-inturpreting it to revoke rights requires a willfull misunderstanding by justices.

[krapp]

It would be extreme, but that doesn't make it unlikely. Roe v. Wade was settled law for nearly 50 years, then it was simply nullified.

And the thing is, the Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Constitution based on what lay people would think, but based on what a simple majority of them imagine the ghosts of the Founding Fathers would think if they were summoned by necromancy to adjudicate modern matters on first principles. That's why the canonical interpretation of "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with any modern interpretation of "regulation" that any lay person would understand.