The SC just upheld the RKBA. The groundwork for this was the Heller v District of Columbia case. Part of the evidence in Heller case was from the View of the Constitution by George Tucker. Written in 1803, this was part of a larger work put in pamphlet form and distributed at the request of Congress to the public at large in order to explain the newly created Constitution to the people.
Here's what Tucker said about the federal government's authority concerning naturalization-
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shalt have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
Volume 1 — Appendix, Note D, [Section 9 — Powers of Congress (cont.)]
------
If the SC insists on continuing the expansion of illegitimate federal power to control every person and State in the country.......the People will be just about out of options.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
Government has no authority to 'regulate immigration', merely to make a regular rule for naturalization.
Well..., sorry to tell you, though -- over the years I've seen government do a lot of things that certain others say it has no authority to do. So, in real life, it takes more that a certain group of people "saying so" ...
If the SC insists on continuing the expansion of illegitimate federal power to control every person and State in the country.......the People will be just about out of options.
The Constitution provides for a way to override the Supreme Court -- if the people decide to do so. It's called a Constitutional Amendment. Of course, it's something that the people have to agree to do, or else it's not going to get done.
AND..., if some group of people were to try to override the Supreme Court on some matter that it ruled on, and it failed -- that means that they don't have the support of the people to be able to do so. And that's exactly as the founding fathers intended it to be. There has to be an overwhelming majority before there's going to be any overriding of the Supreme Court.
Another way to look at these matters is that if a group says that a decision is wrong (at the Supreme Court) and the greater majority of people won't override it, then that's a clear indication that the Supreme Court is right in its decision "according to the greater majority of people".
To get something done in our society, you've got to carry a large group of people with you -- and then you've got the political power to make the changes. If you don't have the political power to make the changes, that's just the way it works.
As I've said all along -- the "real key" here is not the legislators or the Supreme Court or the President -- it's "the people" themselves. If they don't vote in the right legislators, if they don't vote in the right President, and thus they don't get the right Supreme Court appointees -- then this is what happens. The key is simply "grow more conservatives" so that the "vote" changes in this country.