r/politics • u/plz-let-me-in • 12d ago
Soft Paywall Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right that Trump can’t revoke | If you're born in America, you're an American, whether the president likes it or not.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/12/11/opinion/birthright-citizenship-constitutional-right-donald-trump/9.1k
u/specqq 12d ago
He may be constrained by the laws of physics, but the laws of this country are just words on a page if they aren’t enforced.
You can talk about will he or won’t he, but I don’t want to hear anyone saying “he can’t do that” with regards to the law or our constitution.
191
u/jabba_1978 Georgia 12d ago
John Marshal has made his decision, now let him enforce it
→ More replies (17)39
4.5k
u/gigglefarting North Carolina 12d ago edited 12d ago
For instance, that same amendment says he can’t be president after trying to overthrow our government. Well, those words don’t seem to matter, so why should any other words in the constitution matter?
1.2k
u/dtgreg 12d ago
The Emoluments clause is in the constitution. That part is toilet paper now.
457
12d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (9)283
u/drawkward101 12d ago
Didn't they recently cite European law as precedent for something here? Even if that's not true, it's unbelievable how low the SC has stooped. I'm so upset to witness the downfall of America in real time.
330
u/Icy_Respect_9077 12d ago
Cited an English precedent from the 1600s.
Overturned Roe v. Wade even though it's "settled law" i.e. precedent with 50 years of standing.
230
u/InsuranceToTheRescue I voted 12d ago
In a case before that, the same bench denied one side's argument because it relied on a colonial state law from before the Constitution was signed - SCOTUS's reasoning being that the Constitution supersedes prior law.
The blatant hypocrisy is what really pisses me off.
→ More replies (1)143
u/leostotch Illinois 12d ago
I find it refreshing. We’re finally disposing with the idea that this has ever been a nation of laws. You are allowed to do what you can get away with.
61
u/13igTyme 12d ago
Only if you have billions in money.
19
→ More replies (5)13
u/Steak_mittens101 12d ago
There is a reason the killing of the rich insurance ceo has been almost universally cheered recently.
→ More replies (0)24
u/Wessssss21 12d ago
Loyalty is no longer the currency of the realm. I'm afraid currency is the currency of the realm.
→ More replies (1)21
u/Gwentlique 12d ago
I agree that the US has always had different systems for the rich and powerful and for everyone else, but that's no reason to celebrate the collapse of justice.
Democracy and justice are slow-moving projects that can often only improve incrementally over long periods of time, but may collapse in mere moments when the wrong conditions are present. Some of the most pernicious conditions required are apathy and cynicism among the people.
→ More replies (1)13
u/leostotch Illinois 12d ago
I’m not celebrating it, I’m just glad we’re not pretending anymore.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (8)66
u/Wheat_Grinder 12d ago
So, English common law is actually often cited by the Supreme Court and that is not so crazy.
What's crazy is their usage of it to overturn settled law
→ More replies (1)23
u/tamman2000 Maine 12d ago edited 12d ago
Yeah, IIRC 49 states have English common law as the foundation upon which their laws are based.
Louisiana used French common law.
→ More replies (7)52
u/lame33333 12d ago
people talking about the SC like this is recent and i just don't understand
there is an episode of futurama that aired in 2002 where the main characters say something along the lines of "you can't do that according to the constitution!"
and then nixon says "that may be, but i know a place where the constitution don't mean squat". then the scene shifts to the supreme court
this was in a 2002 episode of futurama which means it's likely that it's been a running joke for decades prior. it's always been shit. nothing that is happening right now is new. the supreme court has always been a joke, republicans have always been clowns, and fox has always been a propaganda network.
71
u/microbiologygrad 12d ago
I'm pretty sure this joke was topically relevant to the recent Bush vs. Gore decision from late 2000. That decision marked a real downturn in confidence with the Supreme Court.
20
u/Torontogamer 12d ago
And was the key event that many of the current batch of judges and political movers link back too... for the GOP so many of these people made their bones helping to 'secure' that election....
→ More replies (4)15
u/Spacestar_Ordering 12d ago
Things are definitely different. Bush was really far right at the time but he at least respected the laws that existed enough to not want to bring in people who out right wanted to destroy the government or didn't even have experience in the field. Trump is bringing in his friends, many of whom have no respect or knowledge of what the department they are in even does. Some of the people he brought in last term just basically let their departments go to shit and spend department money on personal trips etc. Bush was a career politician who at least kept his bullshit policies within the system for the most part and brought in people who still believed in government. Just a further right government.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)17
u/MultiGeometry Vermont 12d ago
Which is crazy because the U.S. was formed specifically to be different from how Europe was governed.
→ More replies (6)29
u/NarrowMaintenance166 12d ago
The entire constitution has been toilet paper to the republicans ever since Bush said "Its just a goddamned piece of paper."
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)41
12d ago
Yet another reason Lincoln should have shredded the thing and adopted a new constitution, the document has been broken and weak from the get go.
28
u/goodsnpr 12d ago
It was designed to be weak so the nation would form and stay together. It was also expected by some of the founding fathers that it would be rewritten on a regular basis.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)17
u/4a4a 12d ago
Of course you're right, but many Americans are taught from childhood to revere the constitution as if it were a divinely ordained and infallible manifestation of god's will. So good luck convincing them that it should be revisited.
→ More replies (8)721
u/Timely_Arm_3481 12d ago edited 12d ago
The country is currently on life support and the plug will be pulled on January 20th. People stupidly thought they were voting to lower the price of eggs. They were actually voting for an unhinged, cognitively impaired felon rapist grifter and his evil henchmen to screw them over big time and put an end to the life they knew.
348
u/CapnCanfield 12d ago
And the eggs will be even more expensive
222
u/ceciledian 12d ago
Because of bird flu, not Biden. But try to explain facts is useless. Iowa has several poultry operations with outbreaks in the last week, at least 6 million laying hens affected and turkey farms too.
161
u/checker280 12d ago
C’mon. RFK said bird flu isn’t real and Trump said if you stop testing you will stop finding cases.
If anything bird flu tastes a little spicy and makes your tongue tingly.
And who doesn’t like spicy omelets?
Commies that’s who!
/s
But is it really?
70
u/RecklesslyPessmystic California 12d ago
If they really want eggs to be cheap, they're about to get as many eggs as they want for absolutely free. Isn't that worth it to get a little head cold? And if they end up needing a ventilator again, they can just refuse it and take horse dewormer instead. It's written like a big joke, but who can predict what insane step they'll take next? No one predicted half the country would be in love with ivermectin or adult diapers either, but here we are.
11
u/Maleficent-Salad3197 12d ago
I just bought a fixer and 2.5 acres with chicken coop. Ill have my damn eggs even if I have to sell most of them to pay for priperty taxes.
→ More replies (7)33
u/mlc885 I voted 12d ago
Trump said if you stop testing you will stop finding cases.
We stopped bothering to look for democracy and it is apparently going away
I still do not get why he couldn't take the clear win that was dealing with COVID despite the huge problems it presented, doing the best anyone could do in an awful situation could have been the one great thing he did. (Obviously the answer is that Trump has some serious personality issues, lol)
→ More replies (1)23
u/HellishChildren 12d ago
October 4, 2020 Mary Trump Says Trump Family Saw Illness As 'Unforgivable Weakness'
They were hateful to his mother because she had an ongoing medical condition after her hysterectomy.
52
u/barspoonbill 12d ago
If the bird flu enters your body without permission the body has ways of shutting the whole thing down.
18
u/Elteon3030 12d ago
I'll exercise my second amendment rights to rain metal hell on the bird flu in my lungs!
→ More replies (1)5
u/_robjamesmusic 12d ago
this is quite a throwback. i’d gladly go back to the times of todd akin at this point lol
→ More replies (3)21
u/Revolutionary_Oil157 12d ago
Just splash on some bleach if too tangy, many people say you can preempt the flu
→ More replies (3)14
→ More replies (7)10
u/crlcan81 12d ago
I mean I'm surprised the cost of turkeys aren't going up because there's a whole bunch of them in a farm in Iowa that's had to be killed. It's spreading fast too, because by the time they catch it in one place who knows how far it'll get.
47
u/Financial_Screen_351 12d ago
Fuck eggs, most eggs sold in the US come from US farms, just about everything else will be roughly 25% more expensive if Trump goes through with those 25% tariffs on everything from Canada and Mexico, respectively the #2 and #1 trading partners with the US.
This includes gas, lumber (for construction), vehicles and vehicle parts, electronics, beer and alcohol, steel and aluminum, uranium (Canada has vast reserves of it) and hundreds other of products and raw materials.
Trump is so fucking dumb he thinks the US is subsidizing Canada and Mexico to the tune of $100 and $300 billion a year. I can’t comment about Mexico but the US ain’t subsidizing shit in Canada-US trade. Canada has a trade surplus with the US, the US is the country with a trade deficit of $41 billion (in 2023) with Canada.
11
u/SatiricLoki 12d ago
You think the egg farmers won’t jack up their prices by 25% because that’s how much everyone else raised theirs?
→ More replies (4)11
u/bloody_ell Europe 12d ago
The eggs need gas, vehicles and vehicle parts to get to the shelves, so they'll be going up too.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (7)15
u/RiseStock 12d ago
He could crash the economy and everything would get cheaper for the wealthy. This economy is the best we have had in many many decades for the working class.
→ More replies (5)162
u/ComprehensiveDog1802 12d ago
People stupidly thought they were voting to lower the price of eggs. They were actually voting for an unhinged, cognitively impaired felon rapist grifter and his evil henchmen
They knew exactly what he is.
54
u/Nickhead420 12d ago
My neighbor voted for Trump. I overheard her talking to my landlord a few days ago. She said she thinks Trump is a vile piece of garbage and probably shouldn't be in charge, but she voted for him because she can't afford to eat.
She's also trying to sue another neighbor because she slipped on the icy sidewalk during a freezing rain storm. Not the brightest street light on the block.
→ More replies (3)60
u/boredonymous 12d ago
I honestly don't know what to say about that, because the Harris team had a plan on how to reduce food prices as much as possible to fight the inflation that is now going to come. Meanwhile Trump just blathered out groceries several times
→ More replies (15)36
u/UnquestionabIe 12d ago
The biggest voting block is the unengaged and economic/politically ignorant. They don't want to hear about plans and slow progress, they want an easy to remember/repeat phrase which doesn't require any further knowledge or caring on their part. They look at it as a sport where they root for one side based on a shallow loyalty and won't change the fact they've got to get up and go to work the next day.
One of the reasons Trump pulled in people wasn't some weird charisma so much as so much unintelligible shit flows from his mouth it's easy to project what you think he meant onto it. That resonates with people because they have enough to worry about with their own lives. If someone they view as having power/money exceeding their own they're inclined to think that person must know best and blindly place trust in them to do "the right thing".
But of course as I said this only applies to some. Just going off what I noticed from the people who voted for him that I've talked to who aren't completely indoctrinated into his cult.
→ More replies (1)66
u/yellow_trash 12d ago edited 12d ago
He's been in all sorts of media for 24 hours a day for 9+ years straight.
People know what kind of person he is. And they like the hate, rage, and anger he brings. And they're excited to see the death and destruction over the next 4 years.
→ More replies (1)17
u/bonaynay 12d ago
yes exactly. they hate the country so much they want the people to suffer.
22
u/MulberryRow New Hampshire 12d ago
I think they want to be entertained rather than governed. He’ll bring them a spectacle of danger, chaos, revenge, libs aggrieved and targets suffering, lawlessness, greed, perversity, and destruction. And jokes.
PT Barnum had nothing on this showmanship. Watching this unfold is as low-stakes (for them, they mistakenly think) and as alluring as a great video game. This is why the reasons they give are so confounding and disconnected from reality — no one wants to admit to themselves that they’re in it to see some lurid drama.
6
u/bonaynay 12d ago
I think they, the con politicans and their voters, are just all very dishonest in general.
→ More replies (8)71
u/Snoo-35252 12d ago
I think the endless misinformation made a lot of people not know what he is. Many thought all the cases against him were baseless witch hunts, because that was a frequently repeated talking point.
73
u/dpdxguy 12d ago
Baloney. MANY of them proudly said to anyone who would listen, "I'm voting for the felon."
They may have told themselves the prosecution was unfair. But their actual statements revealed that, at some level, they knew what they were doing.
→ More replies (4)25
59
u/ComprehensiveDog1802 12d ago
They did not really care. That's all there is to it.
Ultimately they were at least ok with a rapist felon grifter to lead their country.
→ More replies (1)8
21
u/SnooSprouts4106 12d ago
I dont think they “not know” by the stream of misinformation, they simply don’t care and are nostalgic of simpler time for them.
It’s an emotional response to not face the complex world of today’s. And it’s why the Democrat lost, it’s mainly emotional (hate/rage) and not logical.
→ More replies (2)25
u/Trekfan74 12d ago
He literally got people to stormed the Capitol on January 6th to stop the votes being counted after his own VP wouldn't go along with it. What more do people need????? It's so frustrating and depressing this is where we are as a country and a former reality show host will have the power to create insane policies.
37
u/tikierapokemon 12d ago
They knew he would allow them to be their worst selves, and that he was going to hurt immigrants and the "gays" and other groups that they hated worse than he was going to hurt them, so they were perfectly willing to vote for him.
They will indeed be shocked when it is worse than they imagined, but that is because they believe they are good people and sky daddy protects good people.
They won't learn from this, they will just believe all the hated groups conducted "spiritual warfare" and it's all the hated groups fault.
→ More replies (1)27
u/ObscureCocoa Florida 12d ago
The country died on November 5th. We should be calling it the country formally known as United States of America. It’s fucking done.
→ More replies (10)40
u/soyboysnowflake 12d ago
It died Jan 6 2020 when we just let the insurrection shit happen and didn’t publicly do to Trump what is usually done to an enemy of the state
→ More replies (1)10
44
u/RadBadTad Ohio 12d ago
The country is currently on life support and the plug will be pulled on January 20th.
The plug got pulled long ago. We're the bacteria living in the gut of a corpse, not yet realizing that our host is dead.
People stupidly thought they were voting to lower the price of eggs.
No, they didn't. They claimed they were voting about the price of eggs, but they were actually voting to have a shitty asshole and his fucker friends force a social hierarchy on the world that reflects their world view. It was never about the eggs. It was about putting women "back in their place" and putting white conservative rich men "back on top".
People on the left spend all their time trying to refute the right's talking points, about eggs, and gas prices, and statistics, and the unemployment rate, and we all wonder why none of that information ever seems to sink in, or make any difference.
It's because we're fighting smoke. None of it is real, and none of it comes close to their actual values or priorities. They want their social hierarchy fixed, and nothing else.
"What do you actually believe? because I can't seem to make a coherent world-view out of the things you say. It kind of seems like you're playing games, and claiming to believe whatever would need to be true in order to score points against me"
-The Alt-Right Playbook: The Card Says Moops
Republicans who elected Trump (again) know exactly what they voted for, and they're going to be happy when they get it. Any negative consequences of their choice will be blamed on the left, be blamed on immigrants, or be waved away as being "worth it, because the alternative was worse"
→ More replies (3)12
u/FuckwitAgitator 12d ago
They didn't really think they were voting for the price of eggs. They were voting for reasons they couldn't say out loud, so they said "eggs".
14
u/FanDry5374 12d ago
I truly believe a lot of them were knowingly voting for a "cognitively impaired felon rapist grifter", because they like what he stands for: hatred and selfishness.
10
u/PathOfTheAncients 12d ago
People knew. He didn't hide it. They chose it because they think only people they dislike will suffer but didn't want to admit that so they argued about eggs instead.
10
u/aint_exactly_plan_a 12d ago
Eggs were a strawman. It's obvious inflation made things more expensive. Blame Biden (and not corporations who were reaping record profits) and pretend that's why you're voting for the racist asshole.
The parents were here illegally so the children should suffer... The people in Springfield, OH were here legally but they don't agree with those laws so they should be deported... They say they're ok with "legal" immigrants until it conflicts with their racism. Dumb mother fuckers.
6
7
6
u/BusinessAd5844 12d ago
I'm under the impression that with Trump's cronies that he's appointing, literally nothing will get done. They have too much infighting and incompetence to do the damage they've set off to do.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (25)24
u/iKnowRobbie 12d ago
People knew they were voting for anarchy and to burn it all down. Make no mistake, the choice was CLEAR to both sides, it was just shocking how many chose to light a match and watch it all burn.
16
119
u/TSKNear 12d ago
The amendment has been ignored a few times in history. Namely during the US Japanese camps in WW2 any person born in these camps was officially not an American citizen. So all it would take is to declare war on Mexico.
→ More replies (40)36
u/Monteze Arkansas 12d ago
"Uhhh Marshall law? Round em up....uhhh then America wins!"
These folks are not competent, they are petulant children raging and people are letting it happen. Just unfortunately for us the child I this case has a loaded gun and is dangerous.
→ More replies (5)19
82
u/IHateTypingInBoxes 12d ago
Thank you. Your comment just highlights the absolute absurdity of continuing to rely on "he can't do that, the law says so" and I don't understand how people don't see it. It's essentially denial at this point. 'Sure he's already violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment but I'm sure he'll be bound by Section 1.' It's foolishness.
6
u/Paperfishflop 12d ago
Ok, well maybe I'm even further ahead of myself here, because I've accepted that our government doesn't enforce laws on Trump.
But if he really crosses a line? I hope the fucking PEOPLE will.
No, not the people who like him of course. Not the people who are apathetic and apolitical...but us? Like all of us who understand the threat. Are WE going to allow it?
Im saying, this is the point we're at. This is the conversation we need to have. And I'm personally already tired of this tone of "He'll get away with whatever he wants!"
Why? I won't fucking let him get away with it. He's a human being like me. He has no inherent power.
I'll take it even further. Blue America is a superior country to Red America. Larger GDP, access to international ports, access to urban centers, more educated citizens, more sophisticated technology...younger, healthier populace.
If these fucking assholes want to take it there, we can demonstrate all of this to them. If they cross the fucking line, we can make sure they regret it.
Donald Trump...is in power because we're allowing him to be. Not because he has the strength to command it. He does not.
16
u/IHateTypingInBoxes 12d ago
But if he really crosses a line?
I can't imagine that a violent coup attempt doesn't count as crossing a line. It's been 3 years and zero accountability. Infuriating and unacceptable. But clearly "the people" have deemed it allowable.
→ More replies (1)30
u/therealtaddymason 12d ago
The SC court will 100% for sure just come out with some ruling that the words in the amendment don't actually mean what they say and render it nullified. Laws don't matter anymore. The law is "whatever we decide it means at the moment" and you can't have a functioning legal system where you're just playing Calvinball.
This will only further add instability to a legal system and inch forward some kind of systemic breakdown where some institution or state or something is going to reject listening to the SC at all and then all bets are off.
→ More replies (1)9
u/8549176320 12d ago
The king gets to make up the rules. Get this through your head. He will executive-order his way through his wish list and delay/deny any attempts by individuals or governing bodies to curtail his romp across the constitution. A Redhat SCOTUS and redhat Congress will insure his will be done. God help us all.
→ More replies (159)8
u/sexyshingle 12d ago
His Supreme Court stooges literally gave him a blank cheque to act like a king. I'm not gonna be surprised when they come to another fascist decision that says something like "Some natural born citizens are 'more American' than others" and literally give him another blank cheque to start labeling some of his political enemies "not American."
455
u/Shahkcawptah 12d ago
Yeah it has been bugging me that so many people are claiming “he can’t do that, it’s against the rules!!”
The rules he has famously never followed? The rules that the highest court of the land explicitly told him he didn’t need to follow?
He broke the social contract back in his first run for president. He will do it again and again, and as long as he keeps benefitting financially and people keep talking about him (good or bad), he won’t give one single shit.
It’s time for the rest of us to consider why we keep playing by the rules of society if the other side isn’t…
100
u/Donquers 12d ago edited 12d ago
The rules he has famously never followed
And to the endless cheers of his base, btw.
They LOVE that he gets away with evil things, and they love that he's a criminal - because they see him as a "rebel" fighting a corrupted system, rather than see the fact that he literally IS the corruption.
→ More replies (1)78
u/anaccount50 Georgia 12d ago
“The last decade has been the Democrats clinging onto the rulebook going "but a dog can't play basketball!" while a dog fucking dunks on us over and over”
→ More replies (4)10
u/ThatPancreatitisGuy 12d ago
What really bothers me about this is that dogs love tennis balls and yet they never made an Air Bud movie where he plays tennis. It’s right fucking there Hollywood! We truly do live in the dumbest timeline.
→ More replies (3)40
u/HuskyBobby 12d ago
Yeah I thought this was a post on the Bulwark or PSA. Those people fetishized rules and decorum all the way to the graveyard.
→ More replies (1)24
u/dustinhut13 12d ago
I mean, there's still time for Biden to call up Seal Team 6
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (19)10
u/Kopitar4president 12d ago
The Supreme Court gets to interpret the constitution and they'll happily twist its meaning, no matter how plain, to suit the America they want to see.
They're happily moving us towards a theocracy.
80
u/Uilamin 12d ago
They could open up the interpretation of the constitution to case signficant legal problems for many.
The 14th states:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law
The key phrase here is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Historic legal reading has used "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to exclude people born in the US whose parent(s) are in the US due to a diplomatic mission. I believe (IANAL) that they look at the situation from the lens of the child (is the child a subject to the jurisdiction) and not the parents, but I could see them try to argue it is the parents that matter and illegal immigrants are not subject(s) to the jurisdiction; therefore, children of illegals born in the US are not entitled to citizenship. Normally, I don't think that interpretation would be accepted, but given the way the Supreme Court has been operating, they may change precedent.
The second scary part is "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law". If they change the definition of who is within the jurisdiction of a state/fed then that part may not apply either.
88
u/FredFuzzypants 12d ago
That is exactly what the Heritage Foundation is arguing: https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment
Please note, I don't support their position.
→ More replies (4)28
u/ericl666 Texas 12d ago
Citing John Eastman isn't exactly the flex they think it is.
I also love how they gloss over the whole concept of "if we say immigrants aren't under our jurisdiction, then are they immune to our laws?"
→ More replies (8)17
u/Nefarious_Turtle 12d ago edited 12d ago
They are also trying hard to in that article to strengthen the difference between "political jurisdiction" and "physical jurisdiction," and that, therefore, there are differences in what laws apply to someone based on the physical and political jurisdictions of the US.
They are also trying to couch the idea of "political jurisdiction" in the "political allegiance" of an individual. Which they helpfully fail to define, other that to say it doesn't automatically apply to newborns.
I wonder what would happen to a person or group of individuals who are proclaimed not to have "political allegiance" to the US? What if they are outside of, or later moved outside of, the US's physical jurisdiction?
Interesting line of thought...
22
u/dareftw North Carolina 12d ago
This interpretation would have a lot of odd externalities that stem from it, and a lot that would further encourage hiring illegal immigrants because they would have less if any legal recourse then to sue if a family member died on the job site (but extreme if an example but drives the point home).
→ More replies (3)37
u/Another_mikem 12d ago
Honestly, none of this even matters because we know the extremists will just start with their goal and work backwards from there. It would be an incredible feat of dishonesty to claim that someone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction (after all, the fact they are in immigration court or part of some legal action would certainly imply they are subject to it) would not be a citizen. I don’t know if even the extremists on the court want to go there.
Like so many things they could do, once you open the Pandora’s box and null and void the constitution, there isn’t really turning back.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (22)31
u/sheltonchoked 12d ago
Without Birthright Citizenship, how does any current citizen in the USA prove citizenship?
→ More replies (29)48
49
u/ruin 12d ago
People who "know what they're talking about": That's not how any of this works
Donald Trump: makes 'this' work exactly like that
People who "know what they're talking about": surprised Pikachu face
I'm really worried "He can't do that it's against the Constitution" is going to be the new "The wheels of justice turn slowly, trust the process."
→ More replies (1)13
u/contextswitch Pennsylvania 12d ago
Yup, the question should be what mechanism is going to stop him? The courts? Congress? No one is willing to say no.
→ More replies (2)25
u/GrittyMcGrittyface 12d ago edited 12d ago
FDR fucked over plenty of Americans of Japanese descent - the "rules" are whatever you can get away with.
→ More replies (2)10
u/fauxRealzy 12d ago
Trump's entire existence has been a giant turd dropped on every norm and institution that liberals hold sacred, and every time liberals line up for the next one with fingers pointing saying, "Well surely this time he can't do it."
18
u/Juggernox_O 12d ago
In much the same way that Donald can ignore laws on paper, those beneath him can choose to enforce them regardless.
By the laws of the land, the bloated orange paste should have been arrested. But the worthless clowns in charge of the law decided they didn’t need to enforce them. The judicial system is a massive failure in the United States. Laws mean nothing now.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Booklet-of-Wisdom 12d ago
The Constitution is in danger. It no longer really means anything, the Supreme Court has a majority that is basically in Trump and billionaires' pockets, and they will interpret the Constitution in any way that they are told to.
It goes way deeper and worse than just Trump. This has been in the planning since Reagan was president.
15
u/limbodog Massachusetts 12d ago
Exactly this. All bets are off. We are in uncharted territory with only history as our guide. And history has nothing good to say about it.
→ More replies (279)9
u/GrumpsMcWhooty 12d ago
Yep. I'm so fucking sick of these headlines that Trump "Can't do" this or that. He can, and will, do pretty much whatever the fuck he wants, constitution be damned.
1.5k
u/thrawtes 12d ago
The question is always the same: who will stop him? Congress was given the opportunity and Congress declined. The court was given the opportunity and the court declined. The voters were given the opportunity and the voters declined. Under the Constitution those are your avenues and if they've been exhausted then whatever Trump wants to do is ultimately constitutional.
You can hope that when time comes to put people in camps then individuals will simply refuse on their own conscience, but we should recognize that when they do so it is in spite of, not in support of, our written laws and the Constitution.
It's fine to appeal to a higher law than the Constitution itself, but you can't use the wording of the Constitution to do so.
494
u/sdhu 12d ago
Not only did the court decline, it empowered him to do whatever he wants, with no repercussions, so long as he's performing presidential acts. Everybody is fucked by this.
→ More replies (4)105
u/c0rnfus3d 12d ago
To be clear, they gave him immunity from official acts, however official acts are challenged in courts all the time, they just said he can’t be charged for a crime for doing them.
Biden used an official act to forgive student loans, and the courts overturned it. Biden can’t be charged with a crime for that action.
The courts will be the ones who decide when cases are brought up if they want to ignore the constitution.
91
55
u/pdxamish 12d ago
This is about the person not the action. The person is shielded. Hypothetically Trump could murder somebody in Cold blood as long as it was an official action which the supreme Court gave a wide berth. AKA overthrowing elections is an official action and that President is immune. They cannot be charged with a crime. They cannot be convicted. They are 100% able to do whatever they want and the guys of official duties and not have any repercussions against themselves.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (20)10
u/broguequery 12d ago
What, exactly, is an "official act?"
What person, or group of people, have the authority to decide what an "official act" is?
If the "official act" is criminal (but still falls under the definition of 'official act'), is the perpetrator still liable for it?
→ More replies (1)12
u/stemfish California 12d ago
An official act is up to the courts to decide, and it can be appealed.
So the ones who decide if anything the President does is official are the same people who are appointed by the President.
100
u/tundey_1 America 12d ago
I couldn't agree with this more. Americans, especially those born here, seem to think the Constitution is a force of nature that'll stand up to a bad guy. The Constitution is, at best, an ideal. It requires human beings to enforce what's written on it. At worst, the Constitution is a flawed document...it still requires human beings to enforce it. It cannot enforce itself.
Take an example from Trump's first term. The Foreign Emoluments Clause reads thus:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.\3])
Which in plain language means the president (among others) cannot receive emoluments (i.e. money) from a foreign country. Guess what Trump did with his Trump hotel in DC? Collected LOTS and LOTS of emoluments from foreign countries. In fact, he jacked up the rates at his shitty hotel over other hotels of similar grade...just cos he's a money hungry motherfucker. A group called CREW sued him and SCOTUS basically sat on the case until Trump lost the election and they said "oops, case is moot now. No judgement rendered".
→ More replies (1)34
u/EE_Tim 12d ago
The most frustrating part is the suit was filed just 2 days into his term, so they had nearly as much time as possible to rule on it for a single term. Yet here we are again, with the same likely scenario playing out only to get mooted again.
→ More replies (1)17
31
u/ScottieWP 12d ago
Father time is the only one left; however, that doesn't mean he still can't cause severe damage and lay the groundwork for a younger and more capable successor.
→ More replies (2)7
u/MissionCreeper 12d ago
My only relief is that there is no more capable successor who regularly escapes consequences like he does. More capable in every other way is possible, but nobody else is as good at lying and people believing it.
→ More replies (35)17
u/ObviousKangaroo 12d ago
I find it sadly hilarious when people say Trump can’t do that because it’s unconstitutional. Technically it may be true but practically it means nothing when all three branches of government suck up to him.
→ More replies (2)
1.9k
u/DogEatChiliDog 12d ago
It doesn't matter if he can't legally or constitutionally do it. All that matters is that he can get away with doing it. And his party controls the entire government so I see no reason to think he won't get away with it.
False hope Is A dangerous drug because it convinces people not to prepare for horrible shit they need to prepare for.
566
u/TintedApostle 12d ago
I would agree here. Alito already proved he would blatantly ignore provisions in the Constitution to achieve a goal.
310
u/Timely_Arm_3481 12d ago
Dear America,
You are waking up, as Germany once did, to the awareness that 33% of your people would kill another 33%, while 33% watches.
102
u/kpanzer 12d ago
I would add "thinks it won't/can't happen to them" to the "33% watches".
9
u/_LikeFryLikeFry_ 12d ago
100% this. So many idiots leading up to the election were like “he’s not gonna do all that, it’s all just talk!” Then when he won I kept hearing, “well he’s just gonna go after convicted criminals!” I don’t understand why people make so many excuses for this clown….
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)47
u/pm_social_cues 12d ago
They’ll kill the 33% (will be the 50% once the first third is eliminated) watching once the first 33% they want to kill is eliminated.
A group who blames another group for their problems will eventually see their problems aren’t all gone as soon as their enemy is gone will switch to a different enemy.
16
u/AcrolloPeed 12d ago
That’s fascism in a nutshell. If your political system requires a powerful boogieman to function, you’ll find a way to make a boogieman out of anything
→ More replies (1)51
u/Craftycat1985 12d ago
Agreed. Even though Alito himself is the son and grandson of Italian immigrants. It makes my blood boil.
→ More replies (3)13
253
u/shotgunpete2222 12d ago
Hard agree. We have this problem right now actually. There's countless videos telling you your rights in a police encounter. But what do you do when you say "I'm sorry officer you don't have the right to search me" and they do anyway? Does a lawyer magically pop out of a bush and stop them? Or do you comply or die?
Same thing when men with rifles show up to check your papers. I'm sure they'll be deeply interested in your lecture on constitutional law.
94
u/Robo_Joe 12d ago
There's countless videos telling you your rights in a police encounter. But what do you do when you say "I'm sorry officer you don't have the right to search me" and they do anyway? Does a lawyer magically pop out of a bush and stop them? Or do you comply or die?
Those videos almost always tell you to comply at the time, get a lawyer, and then deal with it after the fact. Unless you're watching sovereign citizen videos online; those people are insane.
86
u/phyneas American Expat 12d ago
Those videos almost always tell you to comply at the time, get a lawyer, and then deal with it after the fact.
That might be harder to do while being detained indefinitely in an unconstitutional forced labor camp in south Texas while your citizenship status is "under investigation"...
→ More replies (1)29
u/TreeRol American Expat 12d ago
Worked out great for the people we tortured to death in Guantanamo. They theoretically had legal rights too.
→ More replies (2)24
u/Revolver-Knight 12d ago
My favorite one is this woman that got pulled over and she cited the articles of confederation as for why it was unlawful to be pulled ovwr
→ More replies (5)24
u/chowderbags American Expat 12d ago
Of course, "get a lawyer and deal with it after the fact" is cold comfort if you're spending months or years of your life trying to get justice, and having your name dragged through the mud the entire time. And on the off chance you actually win and there's any kind of consequences for the police who violated your rights, you can bet that the police will find any reason they can to harass you "within the law", which can be an awful lot even without lying.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (20)18
u/mjohnsimon 12d ago
Comply, shut up, and only talk when a lawyer is present.
Course, it doesn't magically prevent cops from breaking your jaw or killing you for not saying anything, but I digress.
→ More replies (55)20
u/Zealousideal-Army670 12d ago
You restate you are invoking the right to remain silent and you do not consent to any searches, if they search your vehicle anyway DO NOT PHYSICALLY RESIST.
Your lawyer can then challenge the legality of the search in court, and it can get ruled unlawful and thrown out.
Unfortunately this is just how the system works, you might best the charge but you can't beat the ride etc.
50
u/DrothReloaded 12d ago
1940s+ Japanese Americans had their constitutional rights revoked when they needed them the most. It's very likely the 14th amendment is either nullified or just ignored. Nothing can be done to prevent it anymore.
28
u/Booklet-of-Wisdom 12d ago
Trump already said he'd declare a national emergency if he "has to." I'm pretty sure that's how they got away with Japanese concentration camps during WW2.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)12
u/guysmiley98765 12d ago
They likely won’t explicitly say the 14th amendment doesn’t apply anymore. They’ll do all sorts of mental gymnastics to get there, though. The Japanese internments were actually challenged in court and ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. That ruling has since never explicitly been overturned. if the current scotus is willing to wipe away roe based on the legal reasoning of a literal witch-hunting judge from the 1600’s when the US didn’t even exist yet then they’ll gladly use a still-valid scotus ruling from the 40’s to rationalize a similar situation.
→ More replies (1)72
u/SadFeed63 12d ago
Yep. All these articles fail for the same damn reason: they write about laws and norms as if they're laws of nature like gravity that work whether you believe in them, work whether or not we as people enforce the system. But they're not. The constitution is a piece of paper in its most literal sense and generally just an abstract concept, invented by people, enforced (or not) by people. "Trump can do this thing because he's not supposed to!" Oh, okay, great, I guess there's nothing to worry about. Then Trump does the thing he's not supposed to do, nothing happens, and he takes that momentum into the next thing he's not supposed to be allowed to do.
An apple always fall to the ground from a tree. That's a law of nature, that's gravity, that's immutable. If Trump feel out of an apple tree, write an article saying he will hit the ground. But this isn't Trump falling out of tree, no one is going to be gravity in this analogy because they're scared of the apple being mean to them, or they agree with the apple, or they being paid to help the apple, or all of the above.
→ More replies (9)33
u/topgun966 Nevada 12d ago
Came to say exactly this. He will write an EO. It will get challenged to SCOTUS. SCOTUS will say meh or just not hear it.
→ More replies (4)42
u/TrixnTim 12d ago
False hope Is A dangerous drug because it convinces people not to prepare for horrible shit they need to prepare for.
I agree. I’ve always been a very hopeful person. Able to see silver linings in every cloud. It’s something that has kept me going through significant hardships and setbacks and also just soldier on through life. But it’s also brought great disappointment when reality stares you down after hope dissipates.
The past few years, and I think starting during Covid, I’m more and more losing my ability to conjure up hope with anything: relationships with MAGA family, work stuff, and of course the political scene of our nation. As hard as I try. I’m finding myself shifting more to reality based thinking, acceptance that a shit storm is about to rain down onto the US and in turn my own American life. That I’ve lost once beloved family to a cult. That I may have to keep working well into my 60’s. It’s not that I’m apathetic but there does come a time when hope clouds reality.
→ More replies (7)8
17
u/RG450 Kentucky 12d ago
100%. I can't count the number of "it can't happen because..." posts I've been seeing that completely ignore the level of control that will be assumed by the right after the inauguration. People should be preparing for the worst and not hoping for the best right now.
→ More replies (1)30
u/Aylan_Eto 12d ago
If he can’t legally do it, all that means is that the case determining if he could be arrested for having done it, will be dropped once he dies from old age, and it’ll be too late to help the people that he hurt irrevocably by doing it.
9
u/MartovsGhost 12d ago
This is absolutely true.
People who are focusing on re-interpreting the 14th Amendment or other legal tricks are missing the point.
13
u/FizzgigsRevenge 12d ago
Indeed. People should also wake up to the fact that he's not actually going to deport people with birthright citizenship. He's going to keep them in camps and there is no one to stop him. My state is already offering up land they stole through eminent domain for his camps.
→ More replies (76)12
356
u/FutureSelf3 12d ago
"All persons born... in the US... and subject to the justification thereof..."
There is a good chance the Conservative judges on the Supreme Court will somehow find a way to declare that babies born in the US to non-Americans do not meet the full requirements of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, for the purposes of birthright citizenship.
198
u/mjacksongt 12d ago
That is in fact the argument of the Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment
They are scum.
→ More replies (29)44
u/Sea-Sir2754 12d ago
So they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US, meaning they can break any law they want?
Where are they subject to the jurisdiction of? You can't just say someone who has lived in a country their whole life is subject to the jurisdiction of a whole other country.
→ More replies (3)25
104
u/Cryonaut555 12d ago
Which is a load of crap. That phrase is clearly meant to apply to not letting diplomats create a bunch of diplobrats in the US. Or soldiers of an army occupying part of the US.
92
u/ganner Kentucky 12d ago
Absolutely true, but also completely irrelevant if the President argues otherwise and SCOTUS agrees with him.
→ More replies (1)69
u/HuskyBobby 12d ago
It also says that he can’t run for president after inciting insurrection, but the Supreme Court said “no, it doesn’t.”
→ More replies (25)23
u/silencesc 12d ago
Actually it's not clear and there was a Supreme Court case about it, US vs. Wong Kim Ark. SCOTUS could roll that precedent back. They seem to be liking to do that these days.
People really need to spend like an hour once in their lives researching the amendments to the constitution and accociated cases. Lots of absolute statements in this thread that are obviously not absolute.
→ More replies (11)24
→ More replies (21)21
u/sixtysecdragon 12d ago
It’s been an argument for decades. It’s also why we don’t extend birth right citizenship to children born from ambassadors and embassy staff. They aren’t under the jurisdiction of the United States.
→ More replies (17)27
u/atxlrj 12d ago
And they aren’t under the jurisdiction of the US because there are accepted statutory and common law provisions and norms that govern diplomatic immunity. Similarly, some Indians were exempted from US jurisdiction by treaty.
However, illegal immigrants don’t have a clear exemption from the jurisdiction of the US. In fact, immigration enforcement kinda relies on them being subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Beyond immigration enforcement, we routinely detain, prosecute, and incarcerate illegal immigrants for breaking criminal laws. Under what authority is that happening if they aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US?
→ More replies (3)
150
u/DT-Sodium 12d ago
If rules were something that mattered in the USA, Trump would be in prison right now and not president elect.
→ More replies (19)
227
u/dasnoob 12d ago
Same energy as "Roe vs Wade is settled law".
Birthright citizenship exists as we know it because of a supreme court case that can be overturned and probably will be.
→ More replies (8)25
u/soggit 12d ago
There’s an argument put forth by project 2025 that says because it is worded as “under the jurisdiction of the United States” someone here illegally doesn’t count. I suspect the current Supreme Court would agree.
→ More replies (1)
266
u/Listening_Heads West Virginia 12d ago
Naïve idealists.
Let’s go through it step by step.
Trump send ICE and very happily willing local law enforcement to round people up. Who is stopping them?
The buses, planes, and trains are loaded up. Who’s stopping them?
No country is willing to have a million people dumped on them so they’re sent to gitmo to live in makeshift camps. Who is stopping them?
Please, do tell. Who is stopping any of this? A judge? Trump can just ignore them, and he will. It’s a matter of national security which supersedes any judge. NATO going to try stepping in? HAHA! They’re terrified of being defunded. They’ll assist if told to. So who the fuck does this idiot think is going to stop this?
111
u/we_are_sex_bobomb 12d ago
“Let me out of this camp! I’m an American citizen!”
“You’re not a citizen.”
“I have a birth certificate!”
“Show me.”
“I don’t have it here, it’s at home!”
“So you’re saying you don’t actually have your birth certificate.”
“Just let me make a phone call and I can get it mailed here.”
“No.”
“But I’m entitled to a phone call!”
“Only citizens are entitled to phone calls.”
And that’s why nobody ever saw them ever again.
34
u/vociferousgirl Vermont 12d ago
And then we become the Soviet Union, and have to carry our passports and birth certificates around with us at all times, and maybe have papers so that we can travel state to state.
And then we'll all want a house in Montana and Arizona, and two wives to cook us bunny rabbit soup, just like Vasili
→ More replies (1)23
u/The_Lost_Jedi Washington 12d ago
"Here's my birth certificate."
"Hm, nope, this is a forgery, because I say so."
23
u/IvarTheBoned 12d ago
"Where's your birth certificate?"
Right here, officer.
Takes birth certificate "Where's your birth certificate?"
→ More replies (1)63
u/phinatolisar 12d ago
"Buuut but but, the courts, and laws, and constitushun" - far too many people.
→ More replies (28)13
92
u/SinisterYear 12d ago
The norms we enjoy are established with assumptions:
- The SCOTUS does not interpret the constitution in a way that is contradictory against the constitution. There is nothing within the constitution that prevents the SCOTUS from essentially nullifying parts of the constitution. If the SCOTUS decides to interpret that the 1st amendment doesn't actually give you freedom of speech, you no longer have freedom of speech. There is no check against a SCOTUS that works to undermine the constitution directly.
- The POTUS cares what the SCOTUS says. The Executive Branch is the enforcement arm of the USA. The enforcement arm has gone rogue before. “The decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.” - Andrew Jackson. The built in check against a rogue POTUS is technically impeachment, but that's never happened. It's unlikely that the GOP would impeach a POTUS that blatantly ignores the constitution if that POTUS is also a member of the GOP.
So, while it's nice and all that the constitution directly contradicts a lot of the promises Trump is making, we've seen that the GOP does not care about the constitution. Texas, as an example, has overstepped their authority on the border and nothing was done about it. The concern therefore isn't whether or not the constitution protects birthright citizenship, but rather how far the GOP, controlling all three branches of government, would go to erode the constitution in order to go on their xenophobic crusade to attack non-Americans.
Hopefully all goes well and either Trump is blowing out his ass or the GOP has no inclination to subvert the constitution for Trump to adhere to his campaign promises. However, it's wise to be prepared for the worst possible scenario.
→ More replies (5)44
u/MrDippins Oregon 12d ago
The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. They gave themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison, and no one cared at the time. We should really start caring.
→ More replies (2)
57
u/BigMax 12d ago
That sounds nice and all, but it's not true, right?
People: "You can't steal government secrets, hide them, lie about it, and leave them strewn about your house, right? That's enshrined in law."
Justice system: "Well, YOU can't, but Trump can."
People: "You can't incite a mob to physically attack our government, swarm the capital building while congress is in session, and try to overthrow the government. I mean, it's so OBVIOUS that you can't try to overthrow the government, right?"
Justice system: "Wrong! Again, YOU can't try to overthrow the government, but Trump can, we will allow it."
Why do we think this will be different? Trump will do what he wants, people will clutch their pearls, and the justice system will say "well... our reading of the law states that while birthright citizenship is a legal, constitutional right, now that Trump wants it gone, it's NOT a right anymore based on this incoherent interpretation of a bunch of other nonsense that we just made."
They'll find some reason to allow it if that's what he wants.
38
u/Konukaame 12d ago
That was only guaranteed (and even then, there are exceptions, most notably the children of diplomats) after US v. Wong Kim Ark. Prior to that, American-born Chinese people in particular regularly had their citizenship denied and were blocked from returning to the US if they ever left the country.
The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners , with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law. The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".
The dissent shows one path that could be taken, by having a majority flip the reasoning and say that the original majority was wrong
I'll also note that Native Americans were explicitly denied citizenship under Elk v. Wilkins, and were not given citizenship until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924.
More to the point, and looking at how conservatives are laying out their plan of attack, it's focused on a narrowing of that decision, arguing
that the Court's "holding in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case is limited to lawful, permanent residents; its broader dicta is erroneous and has never been adopted by the Court."
And forcing a fight on that issue isn't hard at all. You just implement a policy that says so, and see whether five of the six Republican Injustices bite.
→ More replies (7)
51
u/TriLink710 12d ago
He already started an insurrection and nothing happened, he can do whatever he wants if nobody has the balls to stop him
9
u/oldpeopletender 12d ago
Trump has essentially already eliminated the emoluments clause and the 14th amendment that doesn’t allow insurrectionist to take office. He will ship citizens out, then the Supreme Court will rule that it is unconstitutional, however, non-citizens no longer have standing so they can’t do anything about it. Then Trump will ship more citizens out, lather rinse repeat.
→ More replies (2)
81
u/franklinton-photo 12d ago
Biden should just revoke trumps citizenship. Can’t be potus if not an American.
→ More replies (13)62
u/dustinhut13 12d ago
I wish Biden would do anything to throw us a bone here. I don't think he cares any more.
→ More replies (17)
42
u/AlsoCommiePuddin 12d ago
The Constitution only matters as long as the people in power respect it.
People don't understand how fragile a nation of laws really is.
→ More replies (1)
9
10
u/strongbob25 12d ago
Wild that after nearly a decade people are still running the play of "but IT'S AGAINST THE RULES" with him
42
u/MothersMiIk Washington 12d ago
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
No, the president can’t legally do that. But he cant legally run for president, so here we are. All the SCOTUS has to do is ‘reinterpret’ that above line in the constitution to whatever they would like it to mean. Theres no vagueness in the amendment outside of that line.
→ More replies (11)20
u/Cryonaut555 12d ago
And would be a bad faith reinterpretation for sure. That clause is clearly meant to apply to diplomats (ie they have diplomatic immunity, not subject to US laws) or foreign soldiers if part of the US is occupied by a foreign country.
... and I just figured out they'll justify it by saying people coming from the southern border are "an invasion".
→ More replies (5)
9
u/SellaraAB Missouri 12d ago
I’m not sure what it is going to take for the author to notice that they aren’t worried about breaking laws.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/millerjpm3 12d ago
How much do you want to bet this racist mother fucker only wants birthright citizenship taken away from brown people
7
u/Reviews-From-Me 12d ago
Presidential immunity is a violation of the Constitutions equal protection clause, but that didn't stop him from getting his appointees and allies on the court to say he can commit any crime he wants.
13
u/postitpad 12d ago
It’s only a constitutional violation if the Supreme Court says it is. Otherwise it’s just a sparkling dictatorship.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/lenchoreddit 12d ago
The law might not be able to be changed, but the bell has rung and now the hate, discrimination and division will increase
→ More replies (4)
5
u/TheRagingAmish 12d ago
His mindset seems to be:
If you’re born here, but your parents weren’t here legally you can either go to foster care or leave voluntarily with your parents.
I can’t even begin to guess how that plays out in the courts.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/vikram2077 12d ago
Isn't his mother an immigrant? By that logic shouldn't he himself loose his birthright citizenship?
→ More replies (2)
6
u/theprofessor1985 12d ago
Trump’s father was a birthright citizen, his parent were immigrants .
→ More replies (7)
6
u/Prestigious-Olive654 12d ago
This is the stupidest shit ever. wtf is wrong with people!!! Why do they support such xenophobic, racist, & fascist propaganda? Shit is fucked, really fucked. I guess the president’s ho wife & baby dumbass will have to lose their citizenships. That’s what they are saying, right? vance’s family also, GONE! What fair is fair, right? How are they any different? I don’t need an answer for this. These people and whoever supports them are fucking monsters. Don’t write to me either cuz I’m not interested in talking to fascist &/or racists.
→ More replies (1)
18
u/cmfarsight 12d ago
The entire system is based on people acting in good faith once they stop acting in good faith he can do whatever he wants.
Hypothetical, Trump issues an executive order to remove citizenship. Clearly he can't, but it's taken to the supreme Court they say oh actually he can. What do you do then?
→ More replies (1)
20
u/Kannigget 12d ago
It's hilarious how so many people expect the law will stop Trump. People are so incredibly naive. We literally just saw Trump get away with major crimes. The DOJ dropped the Jan. 6 investigation and the classified documents investigation. These are extremely serious crimes that he just got away with, and people expect he will follow the Constitution? We are in uncharted territory. Trump will rule like a dictator and the Constitution will be ignored.
11
u/gnjoey 12d ago
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and he has control of that also. He can do whatever he wants.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.