"overturn the Constitution for me"
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
127 points (97.7% liked)
politics
21724 readers
3817 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If they "allow" that then the constitution is really just pointless
Establishing a precedent to rewrite the constitution by EO and get it rubber stamped by SCOTUS is the point, not a consequence.
Exactly, removing birthright citizenship should only be possible through a constitutional convention. It's not up to SCOTUS what parts of the constitution we do and don't recognize.
Well they already chose not to honor the 14th amendment by allowing Trump to run for and hold office ….pretty sure that means the constitution doesn’t mean crap to the current SCOTSUS
Unfortunately it is up to SCOTUS what parts are recognized.
"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
... or they're just removing "outdated" SCOTUS decisions, like the overturning of Roe
Not only is this scary, but plausible. The Trump SCOTUS absolutely loves re-interpreting common sense and SCOTUS precedent supported legal and constitutional rights. Shit could change real quick with this one.
Been pointless with certain cases getting highlighted so the public feels like the government is actually working for them every so often like those feel good stories on the news
Imagine if every single US citizen lost their citizenship in one fell swoop...
population growth in US will crash if that happens.
Deport everyone, the real great America
I think a billionaire somewhere just came in their pants.
I know this move isn't made in good faith. But what if it was?
It would mean that ALL "Americans" would need to go back to the place they came from, by their definition.
Birthright citizenship in the U.S. means that anyone born on American soil automatically becomes a citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This principle is established by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which was adopted in 1868.
EDIT - I just noticed it was adopted in 1868. This didn't have to do with trying to revoke the former slaves' citizenship, did it?
Nah its actually what granted citizenship.
Property isn't a citizen, and freeing the slaves didn't make them citizens.
Before this amendment, the supreme court had ruled that black people "were never intended" to be citizens under the constitution.
During the rebuilding of the US after the civil war, this got added, so that that nonsense ruling (which was argued against, even then, since there was no such phrasing in the constitution) had no power. Instead, being born in the US was enough, which was true for basically every freed slave at that point in history.
So they were officially not citizens, in the whole nation, just before the civil war. Then they were freed by the 13th amendment, and made citizens in this one, and then the 15th protected the right to vote regardless of race or other things.
So doesn't it stand to reason that the amendment initially was intended for slaves, whose parents were citizens of another country before being enslaved?
Most slaves parents were also born here, at that point in time.
So it's incorrect to think of them as citizens of any country, at the time.
The amendment was primarily for slaves, yes. I responded with a nah because the comment above mine asked if this was a ploy to remove their citizenship in some way. It wasn't, the supreme court had their own racist ploy for that.
Thanks for that reply. I don't have anything to add, just appreciate that.
Your assumption is incorrect; birthright citizenship is not the only way to become a citizen. Those who are naturalized through means other than by birthright, and all of their offspring, wouldn’t be affected.
For example, my wife became a citizen after immigrating here. Her daughter, born after my wife was naturalized, would be a citizen automatically because she was born to a citizen. Birthright citizenship is not a factor in this example.
Likewise, I would not be affected as my ancestors naturalized through whatever process existed back then, not birthright citizenship. Their children (my great grandparents) weren’t citizens because they were born in the US, they were citizens because their parents were citizens.
Is there anything in law that states a child is a citizen through something other than birthright citizenship? I don't believe that every country grants citizenship to children automatically.
There’s basically two methods worldwide for children to become citizens easily - you’re born there, or your parents are citizens from there.
You’re born there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Your parents are citizens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
Thanks - I'm still trying to figure out what it all means
The real issue is "subject to the jurisdiction".
People "subject to the jurisdiction" of US law are constitutionally guaranteed a number of rights. Importantly, they are afforded due process, and all other rights due someone accused of a crime.
Not everyone is guaranteed 5th amendment protections. In a "Red Dawn" situation, where the Russians/North Koreans launch an airborne invasion of the US, those enemy combatants are not subject to US laws; they are not guaranteed the rights of the criminally accused.
Any rights and privileges they have are conveyed via treaty, not constitution. Hague Convention. Geneva Conventions. Laws of Armed Conflict. None of these guarantee "Due Process". None of these guarantee access to the judicial system.
One more piece of the puzzle: The Posse Commitatus Act. This law prohibits the US military, (and the National Guard, when federalized) from directly engaging in domestic law enforcement activities.
Trump wants to use the military to handle immigration issues.
Texas has already declared immigrants to be "invaders". Trump's campaign was not using hyperbole when it was talking about an "invasion".
Trump wants a "war". He wants a shooting war on the southern border, and he's going to use the immigrant "invasion" to justify it.
It still wouldn't mean that all Americans would have to go back. You can become a citizen without being born here.
yeah, i'm learning a lot tonight about how special Americans think they are.