Well no, you implied that the court changed the meaning of the 14th Amendment on the reading of Acts of Congress. You implied that the ruling was about memebers of Congress involved in insurrection.
A. It was about States’ Rights v Federal Rights.
B. It was a ruling only about the Presidency and whether States can decide on his ability to be on the ballot.
C. The case was established by reading the Constitution specifically reading the 14th Amendment
No one has accused the members of the House of insurrection and that was not part of this decision.
Further, no part of this decision is a ruling on the rights of citizenship
You may be missing the big picture. For brevity, I will use the Wiki entry, rather than slog through the opinion in full.
While all nine justices agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment grants this power to the federal government, and not to the individual states, two separate opinions were issued. Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in the Court’s decision that states cannot enforce Section 3 against federal officials, but wrote that the court should not have addressed “the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor,[Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in an opinion co-signed by all three Justices, concurred in the judgment, but said that the court went beyond what was needed for the case and should not have declared that Congress has the exclusive power to decide Section 3 eligibility questions, stating that the Court’s opinion had decided “novel constitutional questions to insulate this court and petitioner from future controversy.”
What the majority of the court did was declare the entire 14th unenforceable, unless there is an act of Congress to enforce each provision, because of their reading of Section 5:
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
A person/faction could file suit declaring the citizenship of “anchor babies” void, due to the lack of an act of Congress enforcing Section 1. Based on the precedent the court has set, plaintiff would win, unless Congress has passed another law, defining birthright citizenship as anyone born in the US, and explicitly repealing the “subject to any foreign power”, ie dual citizen via parent’s citizenship, provision.
The current court is upending over a century of precedents and practices, to achieve it’s end.
Steve
1 Like