"We use the courts to resolve these disputes and they've done so with full knowledge of the legislative record. Let's stop tilting at windmills."
Man, some of these arguments. It's like a philosophical blender, add John Marshall, "Marbury", a tall cup of Nietzsche, and hit purée.
They're co-equal branches of government by design, yet the Courts have literally elevated themselves to judicial oligarchs and have even acquired groupie cheerleaders to argue their case. Their jurisdiction now includes not just the defined court systems but even the existing English dictionaries.
Next thing we'll hear is that the 13th Amendment was miswritten and needs to be reinterpreted to enslave Chinese and Canadians, but leave Negroes and Hispanics alone. Anything is possible you know.
In this twilight zone there are no truths, even truths spelled out in plain English. Truth does not exist, just interpretations. Ironically though, precedent indeed exists. Falsehoods and errors can become established precedent but not truths. In such a world the game of 'telephone' is king and mistakes and misinterpretations can run unchecked, compounding themselves like dividend reinvestment until at the end of the tale we have ... something else entirely.
The danger of all this should be obvious to everyone. Heck, it lives all around us right now. Roe v Wade, Gay Marriage, and yes, anchor babies. A nation can be overwhelmed by invasion and it's all Constitutional. Who knew that Reagan could have ensured permanent Republican electoral superiority by inviting in the entire citizenry of the subjugated eastern bloc, plus Cuba, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and many others. Damn, why didn't we think of this? Thank God the USA isn't located next door to India, we would have a real mess then. The Constitution *is* a suicide pact after all.
I wonder just how far the Court Worshiping Suicide Pact'ers can stretch reality ...
What if FDR had gotten his court packing legislation through Congress? Could that Court decide if it is Constitutional? Could they reinterpret what the authors meant? Could they rule on their own Constitutionality?
What if we ratify an Amendment that says the Supreme Court must use original intent to the very letter of the law. Can that Court reinterpret that Amendment? Can a lower court rule it unconstitutional and the Supreme Court refuse to hear the appeal? Can the Court even rule on the Constitutionality of an Amendment? ( Of course they cannot ).
Hey, here's a twist. What if we ratify an Amendment that says they cannot rule on a Law's Constitutionality? Can they rule on its Constitutionality? ;-)
Kirk employs the classic Star Trek logic bomb to confound the enemy.
In all seriousness though, what is really being argued here is that the Court lives in a position above co-equality, which of course cannot be allowed. It is acting as a 9-member super-legislature which is really the literal definition of oligarchy. The entire purpose of the Revolution and Declaration and Constitution and The Federalist Papers is usurped and defeated. The anchor baby advocates are by accident or by design engaging in a coup, and their grade for eternal vigilance is ... Fail.
The final net effect of this perversion is to turn the power structure upside down. The Supremes are highest, the Executive and Legislative, then the States and then finally the lowly people. It is completely reversed from the reality that the Founders gave us. Power flows from ...
[ God ] --> People ==> States ==> FedGov ( co-equal Legislative/Executive/Judicial )
This is what must be restored at all costs.