Ohh That's Rich - birthright citizenship 6-3 to 5-4 ruling explained

[Ms. Toad]

41. No, it's not what he means.

Have you even bothered to read the opinions?

There are two legal authorities for citizenship: the Constitution, and federal statues.

All 9 justices (the legal deciders for what the words in the constitution mean) weighed in on whether the phrase in the 14th amendment of the Constitution (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) exclude the children of people not here legally.

5 said no - the phrase only excludes children born to parents who are foreign diplomats.

4 said yes - the phrase excludes not only children born to parents who are foreign diplomats.

Kavanaugh was one of those 4 - meaning that he believes the Constitution does not grant citizenship to the individuals in question.

If they are not citizens by virtue of the constitution, as he (and three more of the deciders) believes, then they can be granted citizenship by statue (in a way similar to adoptees born in a foreign country are granted citizenship - even though they aren't burn here.

He believes they are already granted citizenship by statute - which is why he joined in the judgment that Trump's order was unlawful, but not the opinion as to why it was unlawful.

He is not saying (I.e. he does not mean) Congress can override the constitution. He is saying that because the only reason they have citizenship is because Congress gave it to them, Congress can take it away.

In other words, he is saying that Congress can override a statute (not the constitution), and that this particular question is ultimately one of statutory interpretation, and he believes that the other 3 folks who voted with him on the constitutional question (birthright citizenship by constitution) got it wrong on the statutory question (citizenship by statute).

If you insist that Kavanaugh really believes Congress can override the constitution (as you have claimed), please read his dissent and quote where he says that. Pro tip: you won't be able to find it, because that isn't what he said, or believes. But it might give you a bit of much needed education on how constitutional interpretation actually works to spend some time reading the explanation - so you can see that NONE of the deciders - including the 5 in the majority - ignored the relevant phrase (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof).