zlacker

I am not nitpicking. The original poster said: "Congress (with good reason) doesn't get to shape the boundaries of constitutional law (for example the doctrine of qualified immunity we're discussing here)." and that the power to shape the boundaries of constitutional law is "specifically and only in the hands of the court." His assertion is flat out incorrect, and I responded by saying that Congress has plenary power to shape the borders of constitutional law. Why did I say this? Because Congress has the unique ability to amend the constitution.

Your sarcastic comment is exactly my point. If Congress has the power to make something literally part of the Constitution then they literally have the power to shape the boundaries of constitutional law because they literally have the power to rewrite the Constitution. And if Congress is the only entity with that power then their power is plenary. Which is to say that the power to shape the boundaries of constitutional law is not something that is specifically and only in the hands of the Court.

>>abduhl+(OP)
If Congress has the power to make something literally part of the Constitution then they literally have the power to shape the boundaries of constitutional law because they literally have the power to rewrite the Constitution.

Ex falso quodlibet. Congressional action is not sufficient to alter the Constitution.