Summary

Donald Trump has pledged to end birthright citizenship through an executive order if re-elected, targeting the 14th Amendment’s provision that grants citizenship to all born in the U.S.

Critics argue this policy would defy the Constitution, specifically its post-Civil War intent to ensure citizenship for former slaves.

Legal experts widely agree that the Amendment’s language includes children born to undocumented parents, but Trump’s proposal could lead to an immediate legal battle.

The policy would require federal agencies to verify parents’ immigration status, complicating access to Social Security numbers and passports for U.S.-born children.

8 points

Dude wants to help Musk become president.

permalink
report
reply
30 points

Surprise? He’s threatened to throw out the constitution because “we don’t need it.” And he has SCOTUS and Congress to let him do what he wants. Plus he’ll have an AG that will basically be his lawyer. Trump is going to do whatever he wants.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Fingers crossed that we have immortalized the constitution so hard that the military would coup him over this. Crazy that’s a thing I’m wishing for. Revolution would be cooler but this is America.

permalink
report
parent
reply
114 points

wow, how lucky we are that the ultimate deciders on litigation are not a bunch of partisans hacks, right?

permalink
report
reply
70 points

See, logic would dictate that this would be immediately laughed out of court since a change of this magnitude would require a Constitutional Amendment. The 14th amendment does not say it only applies to certain people or under certain circumstances.

Then I remembered what timeline we’re in. Trump will have this gleefully rammed through Congress, and the Supreme Court will uphold it based on the long-standing legal principle of “Yeah, but they’re brown…”

And this is how Trump invalidates the Constitution. Not by decree. But by spending 4 years sidestepping the Constitution and telling his base that it’s just an outdated piece of paper with a bunch of guidelines that can be safely ignored the minute they become inconvenient. Or at least, inconvenient for Republicans.

And he’ll do it to thunderous applause.

permalink
report
reply
21 points

It’s been a week but feels like people are finally getting it.

There’s no checks and balances left, of all we have to hope is a line written on some paper many years ago, we’re fucked.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

There’s no checks and balances left,

There is one left, but we’re not allowed to talk about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

oof, bleak.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Easy - declare that kids of illegal immigrants aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then the 14th amendment doesn’t apply!

Of course you’d probably still need legislation to do that, if not an amendment.

I think he wants us to shit ourselves in public about this stuff so he can mock us, but the grandiose gestures he’s throwing around right now are mostly just laughably stupid. I’m still preparing for the shitstorm but I don’t think the big noises he’s making now are telegraphing the real plays.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

The 14th amendment does not say it only applies to certain people or under certain circumstances.

It does have one circumstance:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

I’m trying to figure out how they will argue that immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I’ve only heard that applied to foreign diplomats. Because the parents have diplomatic immunity, they and their children aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I think I figured it out… Diplomats are not actually the only persons who can be within American borders without being subject to American law. Another category is “Enemy Combatant”.

Remember that Texas has declared immigrants to be invaders.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

If they aren’t, then border patrol would have no grounds to detain them. ICE could not deport them…

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Try this on for size: Trump follows Texas’s lead, and declares them to be invaders. Enemy combatants aren’t subject to the laws of the nation they are invading.

Trump can argue that Border Patrol is performing a military role, rather than a law enforcement role.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Will there be enough Republicans in the House and Senate to pass laws like that without Democrat support? All they’ll have is a simple majority in both.

SCROTUS “reinterpreting” all the laws is the fascists’ best bet, I think.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Yes. Simple majority is all that’s needed in the House on most if not all matters anyway. And the only thing that would be in the GOP’s way would be the filibuster, which they can hand-wave away any time they want with a simple majority vote.

And keep in mind. They can just make up the rules as they go along now. They can literally play Calvinball with the Constitution. If Trump demands it, and the House and Senate vote for it, and the Supreme Court rubber stamps it, and the majority of state governments either go with it or at least don’t oppose it…who’s gonna stop them?

If Trump feels like saying that the 14th no longer applies to brown people because fuck you that’s why, and Congress votes in favor of a law that says the 14th no longer applies to brown people, and the Supreme Court says “Yep, fuck brown people.”, then that’s the law of the land regardless of what we think of it, because we individually do not have the power to stop it, and collectively just voted in favor of it.

And keep in mind…there’s nothing stopping Trump from replacing “the 14th no longer applies to brown people” with “Women no longer have the right to vote” or “Freedom of the Press does not apply to those critical of the Trump administration”. If no branch of government is willing to uphold and enforce the law, the law may as well not exist. The same goes for your rights and protections.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Those Democrats have careers and families they care about. It doesn’t take much pressure to own a few of them. Especially without checks and balances and add in some bootlicking appointees to the three letter agencies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They’d need more than a few, though, more like dozens. It’ll just be all-out fascism without even a pretense of legitimacy at that point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Considering it’s how his followers already use their Bible, we can assume they have the same level of “reverence” for the constitution.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

To be fair the 14th amendment was really only intended to give freed slaves citizenship. Which is something I’m sure the Supreme Court will cite as part of “original intent” they justify so many rulings with.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

“Actually, we find that the 14th amendment really only applies to foreign white people, as the original founding fathers were slave owners who did not view either black or native american people as actual people, and certainly would not have granted them citizenship. Given the original intent of the Founding fathers, not only do we rule that the 14th amendment only applies to foreign white people, but we are simultaneously invalidating the Civil Rights act of 1964, reversing the previous Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education, and striking down the 19th amendment as an unconstitutional violation of the original intent of the Founding Fathers.”

– This supreme court, very possibly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

So were the 1800’s wave of European immigrants, that most white americans descended from, mostly naturalized or did they just use the 14th amendment too? I’m not be factious, I actually don’t know but always assumed it was the former.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

The only hope I hold onto is that we need a constitutional convention anyway. If this convinces states to actually trigger an Article 5 convention, then I’m all for it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

No. No, no, no, no, no, a thousand times no.

Trump has returned to power. He has both houses of Congress under his thumb, and control of the Supreme Court. A majority of states are Republican controlled, with many state governments having GOP supermajorities. People such as Jim Jordan, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene are in positions of influence, and people like RFK and Bald Dracula Stephen Miller are going to be filling top government positions.

**These are the people who would be writing up a new Constitution. ** Democrats would largely have the privilege of sitting on the sidelines and having about as much input in the process as a 3rd string quarterback calling plays at the Super Bowl. A Constitution written by these people would make the Handmaid’s Tale seem like a liberal paradise by comparison.

Trump is already taking a giant shit on the Constitution and he hasn’t even been sworn in yet. The last thing we need to do is make his job infinitely easier by calling for a Constitutional Convention any time in the foreseeable future.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Have you seen our states?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

New SC Justice Cannon has entered the chat.

We are so seriously fucked.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Shit’s fucked

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 189K

    Comments