this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
86 points (97.8% liked)

Politics

967 readers
501 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up

Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to take up the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s order on birthright citizenship declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The justices will hear Trump’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that struck down the citizenship restrictions. They have not taken effect anywhere in the country.

The case will be argued in the spring. A definitive ruling is expected by early summer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] plateee@piefed.social 50 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Fucking.... Fuck.

The constitution literally says:

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.

How can a presidential order.... effectively a wishlist or at best guidance for how the executive branch should behave overturn the fucking Constitution.

Does that mean the next Democrat can do an executive order wiping out the 2nd amendment?

What in that absolute fuck is Roberts thinking?

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Does that mean the next Democrat can do an executive order wiping out the 2nd amendment?

No. Keyword there being Democrat. It will be unconstitutional because a Democrat wants to do it, it would be ruled the other way if it was a Republican trying to do it.

It's the product of the clown show fake SCOTUS we have currently: desired outcomes first, rational to justify second.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

"Calvinball jurisprudence"

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

subject to the jurisdiction thereof

They're not going to directly overturn anything, they're going to argue that people who aren't in the US legally aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", even though they're subject to it's jurisdiction enough to be arrested, tried and convicted. It's generally been understood that the clause was meant to exclude people with diplomatic immunity or something like it, but SCOTUS will ignore that in the name of "originalism".

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago

If they're not subject to its jurisdiction, that would mean that other laws do not apply to them

[–] plateee@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

So being born here becomes illegal, therefore no citizenship? To whom would that amendment then apply? Only white folk?

Not to mention the craziness of applying this to births. There have been people harassed by ICE with Real IDs who have been told those are forgeries - do we expect parents to bring passports to the hospital to make sure their kids "count"?

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago

Some americans unironically believe that piece of parchment to be almighty, self-evident, irreproachable, and universally revered.

Unfortunately those in power have transferred that belief to Trump. That's all it took to abolish the rule of law.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Because the constitution is just words unless people act as though they are binding to all government officials. The republican party pushed through cynical movements to ensure that those who truly believe weren't going to be nominated to the court under their presidencies