The US president issued an executive order in 2025 that seeks to undo constitutional right to birthright citizenship
The US supreme court on Wednesday appeared poised to protect birthright citizenship, the longstanding policy that babies born in the US are American citizens, in what would be a blow to a key immigration policy for Donald Trump.
The court heard oral arguments with Trump himself in attendance inside the courtroom’s public gallery. A majority of justices asked questions indicating skepticism about the government’s attempt to overturn birthright citizenship. But while some expected the case to be a clearcut win for those challengingthe government, it is unclear how many justices might side with Trump. A decision is expected this summer.
If birthright citizenship is overturned, hundreds of thousands of children born annually would be blocked from US citizenship.
The fact they’re even hearing this case shows how corrupt this court is. Might as well call it a case on “is the 14th amendment real?”
This is much further reaching than a single amendment. If they side with him, it means the president alone and gets to decide what is and isn’t legal and what Constitutional rights we’re allowed to have. Gone will be the 2/3 majority of Congress on Constitutional matters and the three separate branches of government.
3/4 majority on constitutional changes. 2/3 to bring it to the floor, 3/4 to make a change. Or 3/4 of states to sign on to an amendment.
It’s just a bunch of words. It’s not like they mean anything…
Indeed that is what i said too. They are looking for any excuse to enable a dictatorship here, the antithesis of their oaths. The great betrayal already happened and nobody realized the significance, when they cancelled nationwide injunctions by judges.
It should be obvious why that is such a big deal.
If they let him unilaterally end it, then the constitution is toothless forever more.
Note also it means none of us are citizens unless and until he declares it so. Does not matter if we are 15th generation and our ancestors fought in the revolution.
White people will be grandfathered. All of this is so Trump can say that Obama is Kenian actually.
He might imply that initially to get (white) people to get on his side.
But the reality is anybody he doesn’t like he can simply excommunicate from the country. You are no longer a citizen - get out, or to to prison for crimes against the state. It’s the ultimate removal of personal freedom.
The fact they are entertaining cancelling a constitutional amendment, a power they don’t have, already damns them and exposes them for the traitors they are.
They legally can not overturn this without rewriting the constitution, can they? I mean it’s literally written in the goddamned amendments.
“What was really meant was…” is how they turned the second amendment, clearly about forming a militia for national defense, into being about personal self defense.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The first half I made bold is what the second half is based on. It is about having an armed society so it can be a well regulated militia. Now those same words just mean people get to have guns for whatever reason they want and not because they are part of a militia.
In this case, they are pretending that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means something completely fictional based on what they want it to mean blatantly contradicting over a century of clear reinforcement of what it literally means.
That’s not how the 2nd is taken at all. The founders had literally just fought and won a war against a tyrannical government using privately owned arms.
Hell even Jefferson’s quote from one of his letters points this out: “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” .
Do you think he is saying that people should fight rebellions with pitchforks?
Right now is the time to be getting armed, not trying to disarm us.
I quoted the amendment, which I am all in favor of. In fact, I am in favor of well regulated ownership by anyone who can pass a gun safety course. While I am in favor of background checks to reduce the chances of someone buying a gun when they are not eligible due to a violent felony or similar reasons (part of that well regulated thing), I am against tracking those background checks or a gun registry.
My dislike of stupid court rulings that contradict the amendment is based on what is written and putting it on individuals who want to play rambo doesn’t mean I don’t like the basic concept.
I quoted the amendment, which I am all in favor of. In fact, I am in favor of well regulated ownership by anyone who can pass a gun safety course. While I am in favor of background checks to reduce the chances of someone buying a gun when they are not eligible due to a violent felony or similar reasons (part of that well regulated thing), I am against tracking those background checks or a gun registry.
The well regulated part means in working order. Not that the government gets to decide who can and cannot own arms.
If you’re ok with that, then you’re ok with the current regime trying to label LGBTQ+ people as a mental illness, so they can deny them the right to bear arms.
That’s why you shouldn’t be ok with it. When a group that’s like the current regime is in power they’re going to try and pull shit like that. Which they did btw and even the NRA(puke) was against it.
My dislike of stupid court rulings that contradict the amendment is based on what is written and putting it on individuals who want to play rambo doesn’t mean I don’t like the basic concept.
But the ruling didn’t contradict the amendment.
Hamilton Federalist paper #28:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
This is what the founders thought of the 2nd amendment. That the government should not be the ones with a monopoly on force.
k
They’re not skeptical about birthright citizenship in and of itself, they’re just skeptical about this specific argument to end it. If they did decide to end it they’d want it to be rock solid and hard to argue against and not whatever the hell they were presented here.
Will all the people who said this court is fully corrupted and will side with Trump on being a full on fascist eat their hats when they overturn this joke of an EO?
No because they’ve done it plenty of times. Like the time they said Trump can’t be prosecuted for his crimes. After that everything else is kind of small potatoes. That’s the appropriate level of cynicism. And while I will be pleasantly surprised if they can keep from falling all over themselves to find a way to pass this for him. I certainly wouldn’t expect it.
One correct ruling doesn’t undo a dozen bad ones. Check their record. This SCOTUS sucks.
They just ruled 8-1 in favor of torturing children yesterday, what kind of point do you think you’re making?
Removed by mod
Or, you know, you could just explain why you think they’re wrong instead of telling them “You’re wrong! Do your own research!” like a MAGA
Removed by mod
Let me know when you find a source that says I’m wrong.
Says you’re wrong about what? My whole point is that you’re not even offering a rebuttal. Your argument doesn’t even reach the level of “I’m rubber and you’re glue,” it’s just “nuh uh!” while expecting Google to do the heavy lifting for you.
Removed by mod
To set the record straight, are you yet again asking other people to do the work in making an argument for you?
For someone with such strong opinions, you sure don’t have much to say.
They literally ruled that speech is more important than torturing children.
Jackson’s dissent is correct:
“The Constitution does not pose a barrier to reasonable regulation of harmful medical treatments just because substandard care comes via speech instead of a scalpel,” she wrote.
They ruled that the lower court had to apply strict scrutiny to the case and tossed the case back down, so the case hasn’t been decided yet. Still bullshit, since we’re talking about medical treatments by licensed professionals and not the rights of ordinary citizens, but as far as I can tell they didn’t offer an opinion as to whether Chiles’ practice is lawful or unlawful.
Yes, they tossed it back down because the state wasn’t focused enough on freeze peach over child torture when they regulated medical care.
I did read it. You sound like a fucking idiot.
Even if they decide not to support fascism in this one specific case, they have deliberately, intentionally and repeatedly encouraged the development of facism in multiple other cases.
They are only as complicit in a new reign of fascism as much as current house and senate Democrats are who have had multiple chances to pull it in but chose not to. Keep in mind we voted those people in.
