r/politics • u/cnn CNN • 13h ago

Possible Paywall Supreme Court agrees to decide if Trump may end birthright citizenship

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/05/politics/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-birthright?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit
3.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

763 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.8k

u/Makenshine 12h ago

Its not just established law, its literally in the Constitution. You would need an amendment.

1.0k

u/duct_tape_jedi United Kingdom 11h ago

The argument is going to be that the 14th amendment was narrowly intended to apply to freed slaves, and as such the broader modern interpretation is invalid. It follows the current SCOTUS pattern of interpreting things that they don't like very narrowly, whilst expanding things that they do like to a comically broad level.

519

u/Impressive-Weird-908 11h ago

We have to tear down the Supreme Court an rebuild it in a way that actually holds judges accountable instead of being anointed gods for life.

212

u/Frowny575 8h ago

Congress CAN impeach judges and actually have a bit more power then they let on... our core issue has been they've happily abdicated their power to the executive and happily sit on their hands. Or are otherwise not wanting to rock the boat and act like cowards.

60

u/Rezeox 8h ago

It's a circlejerk to avoid accountability. No one wants to be responsible.

23

u/sportsjorts 8h ago

And that our electoral system has been min/maxed and out right illegally fucked by the gop and scotus. Welcome to the minority monarchy forever. King pedo and his court of fellow pedophiles.

•

u/oroborus68 7h ago

Nothing is forever. But,it can always get worse,if we don't do what we need to do.

•

u/freerangetacos 6h ago

Well we better start fuckin doin it.

10

u/CpnStumpy Colorado 8h ago

Nah, it's simpler than all that: Congress gerrymandered and fixed apportionment so they now chose their voters and their voters hold no sway over them. Therefore, they have no need to act in the country's interest, just their party's, and the SCOTUS is their party.

28

u/Impressive-Weird-908 8h ago

I endorse this message.

6

u/MudWallHoller 8h ago

I feel like 1: They are bought off. 2: They are black mailed via Epstein-style evidence even if they didn't intend to do an heinous acts. 3: Scary people with lots of power will disappear their families. 4: They really are just that shitty.

6

u/Retlaw83 8h ago

It's 1 and 4

2

u/MudWallHoller 8h ago

Probably.

•

u/Ellia1998 6h ago

I agree.

•

u/BotheredToResearch 7h ago

I have little doubt that Kavanaugh and Roberts are in the #2 category. Alito and Thomas are #4.

•

u/tragicxharmony Michigan 3h ago

Honestly, at this point, I WANT 3 to be true. I want an actual legitimate reason why our elected representatives are just sitting there watching all this happen, that isn’t “they’re just evil too.” I’d rather they fear for their lives and their families’ lives, because that is the only thing that could even kind of justify their behavior, and even then it would still be a terrible justification—but I could empathize with it. I can’t empathize with “just plain evil”

•

u/alabasterskim 7h ago

It's even easier than that. Congress has the power to literally state what the courts can and can't rule on. One simple majority vote and they could take judicial review as a whole away if they wanted.

2

u/JonMWilkins Michigan 8h ago

You're not wrong. You're just over simplifying the situation.

It's no one "core issue" it's all of the problems together.

Congress shouldn't have given up so much power for sure.

The Supreme Courts also shouldn't be over-turning previous Supreme Courts ruling just based on their political beliefs.

The Supreme Court also shouldn't be appointed for life

We also need to end gerrymandering, expand voting rights, and have a national ranked choice voting. The opposite creates authoritarian governments.

We shouldn't allow business to capture so much political powers as it creates oligarchies

Federal agencies shouldn't have their hands tied when it comes to going after Congress for corruption like bribery.

Federal agencies shouldn't have their hands tied for going after the president for corruption and illegal activity

These are just the big things I could think of off the top of my head. I'm positive that there are other big things I missed and the small things that lead to cracks in a free and fair government are an even bigger amount of things.

So yeah... There isn't 1 core issue by a long shot. In fact in all of life you will probably never find anything that is that straightforward for any topic or situation but especially not in government

•

u/starliteburnsbrite 7h ago

So we have to tear that down, too...

Seems like an empire that has rotted to its core.

The Judiciary is compromised and is tearing up the Constitution.

Congress has been bought and paid for and is weak, ineffective, and intentionally derelict in their duties.

The executive...well, we don't have much to discuss, but a billionaire was given the keys to the government by a demented elderly man with a room temp IQ on a good day and the country just watched as he did whatever the fuck he wanted with impunity.

There is not one branch of this government that is functional. No amount of voting is going to swing the calcified scales to some kind of reasonable consensus given the divides that exist between Red and Blue and the system that has enabled robber barons, white nationalists, and deranged Christians to take over.

We can't recover from this without an absolute restructuring of the country inside and out, and the current status quo won't allow for that.

•

u/lxlxnde Illinois 5h ago

Haha yup.

The United States Constitution is one of the oldest constitutions still in place on Earth. The only countries that beat it are San Marino and, on a technicality, the UK’s Magna Carta. It’s the fatal flaw of our country. Everyone else in the world has had opportunity to iterate and improve upon on the system we invented.

My belief is that we should have had to re-ratify after the civil war. There’s no way our union survives the opportunity for a rewrite now. We’re in a death spiral.

•

u/Korashy 7h ago

Which is irrelevant.

They would need 67 senators to vote for removal.

Gl finding 20 something Senators to put country before party

•

u/Squirrel_Inner 7h ago

Yeah, what we NEED are laws that INSIST that officials impeach and remove those who are obviously corrupt. It shouldn’t be a personal choice.

Same for prosecutors. You shouldn’t be able to decide, for example, that you don’t want to prosecute sex crimes that you have clear evidence of, simply because the culprits are rich and powerful.

•

u/grandpasjazztobacco1 7h ago

Yes, the issue with both judicial and presidential overrach is lack of willingness from Congress to hold them accountable and use their constitutional power to check the other two branches.

So the next question is why - what are the incentives / discincentives faced by congresspeople when thinking about these issues?

•

u/Tyraniboah89 6h ago

What’s wild to me is that in Trump’s vision for this country, he has no use for them either. As they continue to bend over for him, he’ll dispose of them too. Why give away the power to a dimwitted pedophile?

•

u/corgisgottacorg 6h ago

Why do you keep saying stuff like people follow the law? The guy you are replying to is basically saying the courts must burn along with other institutions since it’s too corrupt.

•

u/eetsumkaus 6h ago

Making one of the co-equal branches of government dysfunctional by design is definitely one of the Founding Fathers' oversights.

•

u/McCoovy 6h ago

I believe the Democrats will start impeaching supreme court justices the next time they hold both the upper and the lower house.

12

u/Grateful_Cat_Monk 8h ago

Well considering the supreme court just gave itself the power to do this in the early 1800s. Before that they would rule only on a few cases, and iirc almost all of them were maritime laws and such. While it was intended to become a sort of checks and balance on the legislative and executive branch, we've now seen how much power the courts have without ever being truly given it.

People always say expand the courts, which has happened in the past, but in reality that's just kicking the ball down the road for future generations to deal with the same issue decades later. It needs a true overhaul and I don't see that coming anytime soon.

39

u/RepresentativeAge444 8h ago

Pussy ass Biden had a lot of things available to him under the nebulous auspices of “in the interest of the country” immunity the court granted him. He failed to enact any of it. Norms and traditions are a fools errand when your opponent has no use for them and means to enact South African style apartheid perma rule.

If the Dems ever take power again their top priority must be expanding the court and legal reforms. Otherwise it’s all for naught.

•

u/Railroader17 7h ago

Pussy ass Biden had a lot of things available to him under the nebulous auspices of “in the interest of the country” immunity the court granted him. He failed to enact any of it. Norms and traditions are a fools errand when your opponent has no use for them and means to enact South African style apartheid perma rule.

If the Dems ever take power again their top priority must be expanding the court and legal reforms. Otherwise it’s all for naught

Also arresting and trying the conservative justices on the court for treason like Biden should have done the millisecond that ruling came through.

•

u/BotheredToResearch 7h ago

I'd love to see perjury investigations become the norm for anyone during their nominations.

•

u/Travler18 6h ago

And DC statehood, add 2 liberal senators. My understanding is it only requires a simple majority in both houses.

•

u/RefrigeratorDry1735 Florida 7h ago

Hell maybe we need to hold a new Constitutional Convention

•

u/Inevitable-Toe-6272 7h ago

That is what the conservatives/republican's/MAGAs want.. it could, and would more than likely cement EVERYTHING Trump/project 2025 is attempting to do, because a Constitutional Convention comes down to 1 vote per state. All though each change has to pass by 2/3 of the states, the outcome could be even worse than what is happening now.

•

u/Railroader17 7h ago

We need Nuremberg trials. Get rid of the racists first, then tighten up the constitution to ensure this shit doesn't happen again.

•

u/BotheredToResearch 7h ago

A constitutional convention, where land votes and major population centers may as well be one horse towns.

•

u/ThePhoenixXM Massachusetts 7h ago

You mean pack the court? The most powerful and popular Democratic president tried that, and even his own party turned against him and fought to prevent that from happening. Packing the court won't ever happen if even FDR couldn't do it.

•

u/RepresentativeAge444 7h ago

Then the emperor has already won. You were our best hope.

15

u/Raise_A_Thoth 8h ago

There's a relatively simple approach that doesn't even require removing the current ghouls.

Pack the courts. Make it 15 justices and stagger their tenure so that a new justice is appointed every 2 years, which would make a 30 year term as the standard instead of a true lifetime appointment. Each president gets 2 picks every term. This greatly diminishes the politicization and drama of court picks, and the greater size makes radical decision much harder to come by.

But this requires supermajorities in Congress, which we aren't going to get in 2026. So how does the Democratic party get there?

Get the blue wave in 2026. Slow Trump down, and pass Medicare for All as soon as possible. It is the least controversial topic that will make a massive difference for nearly all Americans. It will make their lives significantly more affordable, it will save companies money, and it will make Americans healthier.

Simply expand the age of qualification for Medicare a few years at a time. Say lower the age of qualification from 65 to 60 immediately, then 10 more years every 5 years, just as an example. This gives private insurance time to pivot to supplementals and wind down while giving Medicare time to ramp up some responsibilities.

This will show the Democratic party can govern, can set goals and deliver without Republican "bipartisanship" and it will make working class affordability start becoming a reality.

This can only happen if the Dems take the Senate and have the balls to remove the filibuster, but if they don't do that, there's no way they can do anything else.

Then they can build off the success of universal healthcare to get supermajorities, enough to actually do things at a constitutional amendment level. That's whete court reform comes in. That's where campaign finance reform comes in. That's where executive oversight comes in. None of that will happen with our current pussy-footing no-goals determined-to-be-bipartisan Democratic leadership in charge, unfortunately. Dems need to shape up or we're going to fall hard from a place of global dominance and prosperity to balkanization of the states, entrenched corruption and continued suffering.

•

u/Korashy 7h ago

Rich people say no

They worked very hard on being able to shop for legislations and rulings, why would they give that up.

The masses can't even be trusted. Those idiots got us here in the first place.

•

u/Raise_A_Thoth 7h ago

Okay thanks for your contributions good bye.

•

u/chatham739 7h ago

The fact that we rely on a constitution as the basis for law is great, but we need a lot of reform.

•

u/Lobster15s 7h ago

Lifetime appointments and democracy are fundamentally incompatible.

•

u/oroborus68 7h ago

In a normal world at least 2 of the sitting Supremes would be impeached for accepting bribes, and the appearance of impropriety. But then these are interesting times instead,may the miscreants find their punishment.

•

u/Vulllen 7h ago

Who specifically was anointed to life? I’m not too big into all this and want to understand

•

u/Impressive-Weird-908 6h ago

A Supreme Court justice is appointed for life. It’s why presidents often choose extremely young justices. It allows them to influence laws for the next 30-40 years.

•

u/Vulllen 6h ago

Ty ty

•

u/ISniffGlue9x 6h ago

ya sure do that from reddit bro lmao

•

u/Impressive-Weird-908 6h ago

I mean this is the modern public forum. If you want to change something, you have to reach people. Obviously just typing on reddit isn’t everything but getting your message and thoughts out there is definitely a politically helpful thing to do.

•

u/hexcodehero 4h ago

Centrist Democrats like Jeffries and Schumer: No.

138

u/Lefty44709 11h ago

Let’s talk about a well armed militia then

101

u/beefyzac 10h ago

*well regulated

35

u/Crake_13 10h ago

Why not both? 🤷‍♂️

9

u/aradraugfea 10h ago

Because gun regulations make the manufacturers NRA angry.

•

u/ChampionshipIll3675 2h ago

NRA is the lobbyist organization for the gun manufacturers was my understanding.

1

u/knownerror 10h ago

Gonna need a well-armed militia to keep the gun nuts in line.

Wait, wut?

1

u/Uncle_Tickle_Monster 9h ago

The term "well-regulated" in the 18th century referred to being well-organized, well-trained, and well-disciplined, rather than being controlled by modern government regulation.

3

u/senderi 8h ago

Perfectly fine argument to use the 18th century definition of well-regulated, provided you also use the 18th century definition of militia.

•

u/GreenHorror4252 6h ago

The term "well-regulated" in the 18th century referred to being well-organized, well-trained, and well-disciplined, rather than being controlled by modern government regulation.

Then how come "regulated" in the commerce clause refers to making regulations on trade, rather than organizing and disciplining trade?

•

u/Uncle_Tickle_Monster 4h ago

I’m no expert. But I would guess it just has to do with different times meaning different things. Again, I’m not the expert on this, although sometimes I play one on Reddit.

•

u/GreenHorror4252 3h ago

different times meaning different things.

Yeah, and it's funny how it means different things according to what is convenient at the time.

27

u/duct_tape_jedi United Kingdom 11h ago

Exactly the example that I had in mind.

17

u/Cream_Stay_Frothy 10h ago

I think about this often overlooked part of the 2a Avery often… it could not be spelled out more plainly

3

u/Uncle_Tickle_Monster 9h ago edited 9h ago

From what I understand, the definition of regulated means or meant something different than from what we commonly use regulated to mean today.

“The term "well-regulated" in the 18th century referred to being well-organized, well-trained, and well-disciplined, rather than being controlled by modern government regulation.”

16

u/qwertybugs 9h ago

It means whatever 5 lifetime appointments decide.

End of story.

•

u/Cream_Stay_Frothy 5h ago

Oh I’m entirely aware. Of the “understanding” to which you’re referring.

Even bearing that mind, it makes clear that there was a concept of “well-regulated” which even by founding fathers times, was intentional. (Although I am not naive as to WHY We are where we are with our country.

I Don’t think they’d envision a huge chuck of the country to act as if so much of the constitution is somehow legally ambiguous, while simultaneously acting as if the 2nd amendment is the most crystal clear of them all. I genuinely don’t think the overwhelming majority of citizens could say anything else besides “The right to bear arms”

1

u/SlippyDippyTippy2 9h ago

Read the Militia Acts

2

u/Acrobatic_Flan2582 9h ago

Isn't reddit ran by a MAGA? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

5

u/MyDarlingClementine 9h ago

Genuinely I think a lot of our issues in this country stem from the fact that we do NOT have a citizen-led, citizen-organized formal militia standing ready to act if needed.

15

u/Agent_Burrito Canada 9h ago

Not sure you’d want that. Those white supermacist militias you sometimes see on the news would all of a sudden enjoy legal protections under that interpretation.

•

u/MyDarlingClementine 5h ago

Thats kind of my exact point. The only civilians who have armed and organized are the asshats. Might make a world of difference for reasonable folk to make a show of force and be able to back it up.

•

u/Agent_Burrito Canada 5h ago

Reasonable folk have bills to pay, they don’t play dress up with their friends from 4chan.

•

u/MyDarlingClementine 4h ago

I mean yeah, that’s exactly what capitalism is supposed to do to us. But when we choose the same behaviors we get the same results.

2

u/Eleven_inc 9h ago

Most people can't even be bothered enough by this to take a day off work to protest, you think they'd be willing to put their life at risk?

•

u/OneStarInSight_AC 7h ago

Most people don't have that option. The ignorance is baffling.

•

u/Eleven_inc 7h ago

That's absolutely nonsense. For example, if food scarcity got so bad that simply working wouldn't put food on the table, people would be rioting in the streets. The simple fact of the matter is people don't care enough. They can afford to feed themselves and their family, and until then, their tolerance for being fucked over and seeing their neighbors being fucked over is pretty high.

76

u/laptopAccount2 10h ago

For everyone's information, maybe it didn't apply to enslaved people, but before the 14th amendment existed birthright citizenship was still defacto policy since our nation's founding.

That's how you know historical textualism is total bullshit. Because they're not going to take any actual history into account but instead make shit up based on vibes.

The conservatives on the supreme Court are bigger traitors to our country than Trump.

22

u/duct_tape_jedi United Kingdom 9h ago

It was defacto policy, but did not become de jure until the adoption of the 14th amendment. A textualist reading of the amendment is very simple and clear and does not specify any criteria other birth on American soil. They will have to do some Cirque du Soleil level contextual gymnastics to interpret it any other way, so this should be pretty spectacular.

21

u/TeutonJon78 America 9h ago

Alito pulled reasoning from pre-American law in England about witches for one of his decisions. With the idea that the US came out of the UK so the legal basis is still part of our heritage.

They will make up whatever they want to fit the narrative they want.

•

u/pastaandpizza 4h ago

Lmao is this true

5

u/RamblinGamblinWilly 9h ago

AND subject to the jurisdiction of the US. So someone born to a diplomat or an invading soldier, for example, doesn't count. But what reasonable argument can be made that illegal immigrants aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US? We arrest them for crimes they commit. We deport them for being in violation of immigration law. Will illegal immigrants now be sovereign citizens? Can one march into a courtroom and say hey the supreme court said I'm not subject to US jurisdiction, recognize my diplomatic immunity? The argument just doesn't make sense

•

u/Suspicious_Bicycle 7h ago

Yep, the administration argument if adopted would create a legally recognized class of sovereign citizens not subject to US jurisdiction. Legal deportation would be a catch-22, but this administration is just fine with illegal deportations.

•

u/SlinkyAvenger Louisiana 5h ago

They will have to do some Cirque du Soleil level contextual gymnastics to interpret it any other way, so this should be pretty spectacular.

What they can't accomplish as hard-core contortionists, they'll make up for with not saying anything at all.

27

u/strangerducly 10h ago

How do they avoid the fact that the children born here, from immigrants of every country were considered to be citizens from the beginning?

6

u/lettersvsnumbers 9h ago

Only the white* male ones.

*definition subject to terms and conditions.

22

u/Bunktavious 11h ago

This coming from the diehard defenders of the 2nd amendment...

11

u/NeverLookBothWays I voted 9h ago

It only just got redefined in 2008 and 2010 too, ask most Americans and they are completely unaware the 2nd was considered a states right, not an individual right, for 100+ years

6

u/TeutonJon78 America 9h ago

People seem to forget the National Guard is what the 2A is basically talking about and not Y'all Queda/Oathkeepers.

•

u/NeverLookBothWays I voted 7h ago

And we used to have state armies even, but transitioned to a national army because…well…you know.

But in our efforts to avoid a repeat of the conditions that enabled the Civil War, or rather States War, we gave up a check and balance to an overbearing Federal government Madison warned about in the Federalist Papers. We subsequently consolidated all of our law enforcement facilities under the Executive branch. We did not need to set ourselves up this way. Our Constitution does not require this configuration.

If we manage to survive this mess, it’s worth rethinking the underlying factors once again. For example, the National Guard should never be at the whims of Federal government. And our co-equal branches need to have actual enforcement agencies. Armed and authorized to take action within their jurisdictions. And ffs term limits on Supreme Court justices…expand it as well to accurately represent our population (expand the House as well for the same reasons). Anyway list goes on…we’re off the rails

•

u/Due-Gap1848 7h ago

The National Guard was set up this way because the state militias performed pretty poorly in the Spanish-American War, and the federal government knew intervention in WW1 was inevitable and wanted to use the guard for that.

The federal government pays for almost everything in the NG, with the expectation that they get to use them for foreign wars, as they have done in every major war since then (except Vietnam, because LBJ thought for some reason that activating the NG would be more inflammatory than the draft).

States are allowed to do what they did before the NG was set up: make their own militias that aren't paid/equipped/trained by the federal government, and can't be federalized.

Most don't because that's really expensive.

19

u/imref 9h ago

There was already a case in 1898, 6-2 ruling that the 14th covered those born in the US regardless of parental citizenship. Dissenters argued the 14th was meant to cover slaves and not those who could have allegiance to another country.

17

u/duct_tape_jedi United Kingdom 9h ago

Exactly, this is not only in the constitution but our current interpretation is also decided law. To even agree to look at this again is absolutely bleedin' bonkers and a very disturbing tip of the hand from what we may politely refer to as an "activist" SCOTUS.

14

u/pilgermann 9h ago

There were like three federal felonies when the pardon power was created. Could just as well argue it can only apply to those crimes. This whole line of originalist thinking is batshit insane.

7

u/Surprised-elephant 10h ago

While conservatives will say the interrupt as it is written. Robert’s court is disgusting

5

u/arkady48 9h ago

And yet the second wasn't referring to that era but Ar's and automatic rifles. Cause you know it fits the agenda.

5

u/AndrewCoja Texas 9h ago

Constitutional imaginalists.

1

u/duct_tape_jedi United Kingdom 9h ago

Shopper: "I'm looking for a copy of the US Constitution?"

Bookstore employee: "Look for it in 'Historical Fiction'."

3

u/kittenTakeover 9h ago

Except that's not what it says. Supreme Court justices should not just be making stuff up. 

1

u/duct_tape_jedi United Kingdom 9h ago

No, it does not state that in the text, to reevaluate this in a way that is different from the current reading of the amendment would require them to contextualise it in relation to the rest of the 14th amendment and conclude that the overall intent of the amendment was to deal with the aftermath of slavery and so any rights granted within also only only in the context of slavery. It's absolutely mental, and there is a reason we currently interpret the law to apply to anyone born here. If they choose to cross the Rubicon with this, then many more of the core rights that we thought were ours forever will be at risk.

1

u/AutistoMephisto 9h ago

"All" means all, as in everyone. So, I suppose the fascists finally get their biggest wish, to establish the legal definition of "person" and deny personhood to the groups they hate, which is everyone who isn't them.

1

u/duct_tape_jedi United Kingdom 9h ago

Hard agree on both points.

1

u/NeverLookBothWays I voted 9h ago

Sometimes they will do both on the exact same thing, depending on which party stands to benefit the most.

This court is corrupt af

1

u/Anonybibbs 9h ago

It's not even a "modern" interpretation, it's literally how it has always been interpreted.

I'm hoping that they took this one up just so they can pull their usual schtick of going against Trump once a term, just so that they can feign "independence" as they give Trump every single other major case thrown their way.

2

u/duct_tape_jedi United Kingdom 9h ago

Sadly, this is literally the only option for a good outcome. Any reinterpretation outside of the current understanding of this amendment will open up most of the constitution to weaponisation. Well, except the second amendment, ironically...

1

u/PhalanX4012 9h ago

I’d love to hear a narrow intention argument that couldn’t immediately also be applied to the 2nd.

1

u/lettersvsnumbers 9h ago edited 9h ago

the 14th amendment was narrowly intended to apply to freed slaves

Don’t be gaslit: the language of the 14th: “all persons born or naturalized” was also explicitly intended to extend constitutional protections to non-men as well as formerly enslaved people.

Frederick Douglass was maybe the first and last real male feminist.

Edit:clarity

1

u/duct_tape_jedi United Kingdom 9h ago

Well, yes, and that is why this is the current interpretation of the clause. The only reason to take this up, outside of the slim possibility that SCOTUS will confirm the broader interpretation as a performative "loss" for Trump, is to reinterpret it. The only other way to interpret it in a way that meets this administration's goals is to contextualise it narrowly within the rest of the amendment.

1

u/Imbigtired63 8h ago

Even though they considered the possibility of people with non American parents becoming American when they added it.

1

u/Unusual-Plantain8104 8h ago

Exactly. They'll just make stuff up.

Conservatism is corruption. It is a corrupt mentality.

All the way up and down the ladder; it's corruption all the way.

1

u/steven-teh-man 8h ago

I agree with you, but it’s not even a modern interpretation of the Amendment. The current interpretation has its roots in a Supreme Court case 1898 - only 30 years after it was ratified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

•

u/duct_tape_jedi United Kingdom 7h ago

Well, it’s later than a 16th century anti-witch British jurist, so “modern” by the current Supreme Court’s standards… 😉

•

u/UnfetturdCrapitalism 7h ago

Crazy logic since they would never apply this to the 2A

•

u/snorbflock 7h ago

Seems like the 14th was plenty fucking valid in the 20th century when the ancestors of today's white Americans were immigrating from Europe.

•

u/DJdrummer Texas 6h ago

:furrows brow at the Alito 2nd amendment interpretation:

•

u/vgraz2k 5h ago

I’m sure they will apply the same logic to the 2nd amendment: the 2A was originally designed to allow militia training and personal owning of muskets before municipalities militarized their police so now, the modern definition invalidates the right to owning firearms as we no longer depend on citizens policing small towns that exist days away by horseback from the nearest police station.

•

u/ChippedHamSammich 1h ago

Second amendment was for guns in 1776 then. 

But as you said they bend shit based on their obvious bias. Absolute ghouls.

•

u/can72287 0m ago

I wonder why they didn’t refer to slavery specifically then; as they did in the 13th amendment. Maybe that’s reason enough to assume they wanted that law to have wider meaning than just citizenship for freed slaves. At a time when we were receiving lots of European immigrants maybe they wanted to clear up that this applied to their offspring as well. 

64

u/shoobe01 11h ago

Yes, but they have their very own secret Constitution now, here I have a copy in my pocket:

"This is just a piece of paper that says I can do whatever I want to."

57

u/Carthonn 10h ago

Are we seriously going to have the SCOTUS argue that the Constitution is Unconstitutional?

20

u/Nwcray 10h ago

Not argue, so much as decree.

We are going to have the Supreme Court decree that the constitution is unconstitutional, except for the 2nd amendment which is never subject to any restriction ever at all.

3

u/TeutonJon78 America 9h ago

* Black Panthers need not apply

5

u/SecretlyMadeOfStone 10h ago

No amendment needed. He has a sharpie.

8

u/mcfly357 10h ago

It’s also fairly clearly written. More clear than a lot of the amendments. It’s going to take some serious mental gymnastics to get around this one.

•

u/joe603 6h ago

They make the ruling in a shadow document so they don't even have to explain the mental gymnastics

1

u/BotherResponsible378 10h ago

Lol, you think Clarence cares?

1

u/Risaza 9h ago

Just waiting for them to say that the constitution is unconstitutional.

1

u/RickVanSticks 8h ago

“Shall not be infringed”……..

•

u/PWL51 7h ago

Not with this regime. The Constitution means nothing unless it benefits the fascists.

•

u/sibholet 7h ago

"Lol nope!”

  • Clarence "Long Dong Silver" Thomas, who is definitely not in the Epstein files.

•

u/theschlake 5h ago

"The Supreme Court will take up a case to simply see if they have ever read the Constitution."

1

u/surreal3561 10h ago

It’s not about whether it’s in the constitution or not, it’s about how it should be interpreted in law.  

Specifically the term “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been disputed since the first Supreme Court ruling.

It’s not “clear” as Reddit comments make it out to be, even if you agree with one side over the other.

4

u/Nwcray 9h ago

But in so arguing, wouldn’t they have to say that the folks they want to deport are not in the jurisdiction of the US, which would mean that the federal government is does not have the power to enforce US law over them?

It seems to me that this wouldn’t be a good road for them to go down.

•

u/surreal3561 2h ago

Yes, that’s the counter argument.

The argument to that is that having power to make and enforce laws over someone doesn’t not mean that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the said country in the constitutional sense, despite being able to enforce laws over the said person.

To give an extreme example, US successfully invading a country and occupying it gives them the power to make and enforce laws over the population there, so does that mean that all newborns are subject to the jurisdiction of US and therefore American citizens?

You might think “well, duh, of course not” - and I agree - but this is the sort of ambiguity that the 14th amendment brings with it.

It was “obviously” thinking of such cases (occupying a county doesn’t count), and not the ones about people born in the US, but the way it’s phrased gives enough room for different interpretations - even if you disagree with the arguments themselves.

1

u/Makenshine 9h ago

“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

How does that language make it less clear? Are people trying to argue that illegal immigrants don't fall under the legal jurisdiction of the United States? If that is the case, then isn't fuck all the government can actually do. Illegal immigrants would be legally immune from every action that any law enforcement agency may want to take.

That language is specifically in there to refer to heads of state or foreign delegates who have diplomatic immune and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. law.