[The Pack Knight]

Two problems:

1) the decision is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not protect aliens, only U.S. citizens.

Ok, I'll bite. Where does the word "citizen" appear in the Fifth Amendment?

2) The Supreme Court does NOT MAKE NATIONAL LAW. The Constitution empowers ONLY CONGRESS to legislate. The constitutional and legitimate scope of SCOTUS decisions reach only to the PARTIES of the case.

The Founders understood it differently from you. Read Federalist 78.

Thus Trump is not bound by this decision regarding James Dimaya because it is an unconstitutional decision and is certainly not bound from continuing efforts to deport aliens under The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

So you want the President to be able to decide for himself whether he is violating the Constitution? Exactly how much power do you want to give the next Democrat President?

[Jim W N]

Where does the word "citizen" appear in the Fifth Amendment?

The intent of the first ten amendments is not to grant a list of rights - they are already pre-existent per the Declaration of Independence. They are a sampling of rights the feds are not to violate as confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Aliens did not delegate the powers to the feds via the Constitution. "We the People" did via the States. Aliens are not under the purview of the Constitution. They are like U.S. territories, under federal authority but outside the purview of the Constitution.

"ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" U.S. Const., Art I, Sec. 1.

The Constitution trumps whatever uncited portion of Federalist 78 you are referring.

However, Federalist 78 does say, "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."

An invalid law or unconstitutional decision may be ignored by any other branch of government and/or the sovereign states. However, good faith demands they give a reasoned constitutional basis for their rejection of such federal acts.