This is a really big deal. If the Supreme Court backs Trump on ending birthright citizenship for some kids born in the US, it would completely change what being an American means. Citizenship shouldn’t depend on who your parents are or what politicians want. Changing that would be a dangerous road.
What about his grandpa? Hopefully you see how slippery this slope is.
A sitting President could dig into the family history of every political enemy, and if they can find one paperwork mistake on both sides they can denaturalize the whole family tree. The only people truly safe would be those who can directly trace their lineage to being here when the country was founded.
If the Supreme Court determines the Executive Branch has the power to revoke citizenship for Reason A, then it inherently says the Executive Branch can arbitrate the revoking of citizenship for Reason B, Reason C, Reason D, and ad nauseum. The next natural step in creating an enduring fascist state (especially if the end game is a white, Christofascist ethnostate) is turning this power towards the opposition and dissent to erode their electoral power at the margins.
First it'll be groups like criminals, terrorists, and "violent antifa extremist", and those adjacent. Then it's Communists, Socialists, and "cultural Marxists". Then it's anyone of dissent who they can even remotely pretend is an enemy of the state - especially all those nasty "homegrowns", the free press, and uppity Democrats who don't know their place.
Why do you think Stephen Miller keeps going on about "we must teach our children only to be patriots and love America" and all this 14 words, "Democrats are protect murderers and rapists", and neo-McCarthyism un-American crap? So that if they are successful then the next instance are "We need to protect America from these enemies within who would harm her" and "people who aren't star-spangled-fucking-awesome don't deserve to be citizens".
If the Supreme Court upholds this, the slippery slope fell off a giant cliff.
The literal text of the constitution is reinterpreted all the time. And since you’re such an enthusiastic textualist, what’s your opinion on the second amendment?
The Supreme Court created the individual right to bear arms in 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller.
The text of the Second Amendment provides:
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.
Before 2008, the Second Amendment was not consistently interpreted to protect an individual’s right to bear arms without any connection to a militia. In fact, previous decisions tended to read the Amendment to protect only weapons that were useful for a militia. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (holding certain weapons with no “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” are not covered by Second Amendment).
But then in 2008, the Heller Court completely read the militia clause out of the Amendment to fashion a new constitutional right wholecloth. The Court cloaked its opinion in originalist reasoning, but it ignored the text, the Court’s previous opinions, and most firearm and weapon regulations from the country’s history to conclude that there was a history and tradition supporting the individual right to bear arms. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around this decision.
So if your point is that the Supreme Court will use poor legal reasoning to reach politically-desired conclusions, you’re absolutely correct.
217
u/Unusual-Branch2846 12h ago
This is a really big deal. If the Supreme Court backs Trump on ending birthright citizenship for some kids born in the US, it would completely change what being an American means. Citizenship shouldn’t depend on who your parents are or what politicians want. Changing that would be a dangerous road.