There has never been a Supreme Court justice more willing to go back to the original Constitution, go back to the original understanding and to overturn president. He is the most willing to overturn president.
So this kind of circular logic of when, you know, constitutionality kind of winks on and off, depending on how popular something is, is an issue that has really kind of confounded lower courts.
James Wilson is the first to argue, no, they have zero, they have no authority over us at all. Now, this is such a groundbreaking argument that one of his mentors reads it and says, James, you're a young man, you have a, you know, big career ahead of you, don't put this out there yet. It's too bold.
A Supreme Court ruling on this really will settle the matter, but Congress did so when it when it drafted our statute. So I don't think this is so much a area of law where there's a lack of clarity. I think the statute's very clear. It's in the black letter statutory text.
If you begin to say that you have to be a large enough group of people to receive standing under the 14th Amendment, then that means that the 14th Amendment suddenly becomes a piece of Swiss cheese, and it becomes a question of are you guys sufficiently large in number or perceived societal impact to be discriminated against and then to need to have equal protection laws.
