Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett triggered fierce backlash from MAGA loyalists after forcefully questioning the Trump administration’s top lawyer and voicing skepticism over ending birthright citizenship during a heated Supreme Court argument.
Since taking office, Donald Trump has pushed for an executive order to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional guarantee under the 14th Amendment that grants automatic U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil.
During oral arguments, Barrett confronted Solicitor General Dean John Sauer, who was representing the Trump administration, over his dismissive response to Justice Elena Kagan’s concerns. Barrett sharply asked whether Sauer truly believed there was “no way” for plaintiffs to quickly challenge the executive order, suggesting that class-action certification might expedite the process.
Imposter? A Justice should have no loyalty but to the law. This isn’t about her opinion. It’s about reading the 14th Amendment.
Want to change it? Go for it. You’ll need half the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of states to amend the Constitution.
THEY CAN TAKE AWAY DRINKING BEING ILLEGAL FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS… My bad. I was just confused, because that was a right once, too.
Why bother, just sign an EO. /s
Trump, “Why the /s? I’ll do it.”
He’ll do it, speaker of the house will say “well it’s not our job to amend the constitution so if he wants to we have no choice but to support it” and then the Supreme Court will back it 5-4
This is the case that seems the most clear out of any in the past few years.
The text of the amendment isn’t murky at all.
“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.”
There’s no way to interpret that being born in the US doesn’t convey citizenship.
I believe from listening to recent NPR that their lawyers aren’t even arguing about that. They are arguing about whether national injunctions can really be national injunctions or not.
Yeah - they’re trying REALLY hard to not argue the merits because it’s extremely clear to anyone that what they’re doing is illegal, so they’re trying to make it a civil suit issue.
The next step after that is to claim Sovereign Immunity to keep civil suits from being heard.
And then they’ll have their legal justification for disappearing US Citizens without due process.
So leaving it to the states where they can jerrymander the elections and win locally first then a few years later fuck up the entire country “legally”.
No, they aren’t arguing it should be at state level, their argument is much worse, they are arguing it needs to be at the individual level. So every single person harmed would need to get their own lawyer.
Darn! Thanks for clarifying. That sucks.
And that’s why the GOP are reframing those deemed undesirable as illegals, invaders, and terrorists. These people by some definitions do not behave as bound to the law of the country they are in.
Any reason to justify what they are doing.
If they aren’t bound by the law, then they aren’t illegal though. I agree that’s what they’re attempting, but the logical implication is the opposite. I would never accuse them of actually being logical though.
The funny thing about that is if they argue that they’re not under the jurisdiction of the United States, then we couldn’t even give them a parking ticket, let alone deport them. They’d effectively have diplomatic immunity.
That’s not how it would work at all. They’d be nationless. You do not want to be nationless.
I think I heard a plan to argue the amendment intended “exclusively subject to the jurisdiction”, though that requires a pretty huge “reading between the lines” to just invent that extra term. In such a scenario they would argue citizenship of a foreign nation by way of a parent being able to pass on that citizenship disqualifies then for US citizenship. This means that they couldn’t be left nationless even if that sketchy interpreation prevails.
But the reading of the text pretty much seems clear cut, the only way someone born in US soil could be disqualified is if the US was invaded and it was occupied to the point where US government had no practical authority, like if Japan had kicked out all the US government, judges, and law enforcement to make it clearly obvious there no jurisdiction left…
They would be without citizenship, yes, but they would also be legally outside of the jurisdiction of the United States. They could literally do anything and not get arrested. It would be like everywhere they go they’re standing on international waters.
That’s not what happens. If you’re nationless the fact is that any country may abuse you and no country will stand up for you. It’s a very powerless position to be in. To say “aha, but your laws don’t apply* is wrong (laws apply to everyone in the country except those with diplomatic immunity, which is the opposite of being stateless) and has a"sovereign citizen” flavor about it.
That’s the literal definition of jurisdiction.
ju·ris·dic·tion /ˌjo͝orəsˈdikSHən/ noun
the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
The United States can only enforce its laws on those that are within its jurisdiction. It’s exactly the same as entering a foreign consulate or pulling over a foreign diplomat. There is literally nothing they can legally do to them.
To your point, if they ever chose to leave, they would never be allowed re-entry.
Maybe you’re technically and logically correct (I don’t know enough to say) but they could and would still arrest them regardless and there’s not much that can be done about that. A private citizen that’s stateless is de-facto defenseless against the government while a diplomat is backed by an entire government.
The UN is supposed to help prevent citizens from being rendered stateless as well, but it happens in smaller countries regardless. If the US does it, unfortunately I don’t see the UN doing enough to stop it.
You’re right that the USA can enforce laws only on those under its jurisdiction. But its jurisdiction extends to everyone in the USA, citizens or not. If I travel to the USA and commit a crime there, I can be arrested, tried and imprisoned in the USA unless the USA decides to deport me instead. If I’m imprisoned in the USA and my home country has an extradition treaty with the USA, my home country can decide whether it wants to go through a diplomatic process to get me returned. If I don’t have a home country (being stateless), that chance doesn’t exist. And if they don’t try to get me returned and the USA doesn’t deport me, I’m stuck in a US prison.
The same applies in other countries. When you are in a country you are under that country’s jurisdiction, meaning that the laws of the country apply to you and you can be handled by the judicial system accordingly. Every sovereign nation has the legal authority to make and enforce laws within its territory, and this authority applies to everyone physically present, not just its citizens. This principle, that a country’s laws apply to everyone in the country, is why “sovereign citizens” are basically mistaken when they claim to be beyond the law’s reach, and it’s why tourists don’t have license to go on a crime spree.
You are wrong
You can not just do anything if your nationless. Where are you getting this absurd idea from? At best you get stuck in an ok jail somewhere for eternity. You have NO Rights, at all, if you are nationless.
You can if you are outside of the jurisdiction of the presiding government body. You’re untouchable by the law of the land. That’s literally what jurisdiction means.
Lmao ok sovcit, whatever you want to believe.
The argument I heard initially was that irregular migrants are not, somehow, subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
In that case, they can’t be deported or be charged with any crime.
deleted by creator
These people have no issues holding multiple conflicting opinions.
deleted by creator
I wish we still lived in a country where legal arguments are still relevant.
When half the social networks, such as they were, have been decimated via illegal orders and people who don’t have legal authority are allowed to do as they please, fire who they please, and confiscate funding as they please, laws mean nothing unless you’re poor or in the “out” group.
deleted by creator
Then we should “discuss” the second amendment in another forum.
First time reading about the GOP?
My point is that the 14th Amendment is very clear. There’s no room for interpretation as there is with something like a fetus compared to a baby in Roe v. Wade. What they want is to amend the Constitution. That’s a different process entirely.
14A S3 is also very clear, but here we are
The problem is, the people who wrote the 14th amendment didn’t specify how that is supposed to be enforced.
Criminal conviction? Well trump was only convicted of a state charge of fraud, not insurrection.
Simple majority of congress? Republican congress could just ban democrats.
2/3 Supermajority of congress? It’ll never pass
Supreme court? Well, a majority of them is republican.
If its too easy to invoke it, it could be weaponized against progressive candidates. They’d just declare BLM protests as “insurrection” and ban them from the ballot.
No idea why you’re getting downvoted for pointing this out. This is literally the flaw with the insurrection clause of yes 14th amendment and precisely why it wasn’t enforced. SC ruled that states don’t get to enforce it on their own authority, but failed to specify who does. If the amendment had specified an enforcement mechanism, there would be no need for interpretation.
The same way the minimum age limit for president is enforced.
So, by the supreme court?
Well, we’re fucked with this conservative-ass court. They already stuck down Colorado’s court ruling.
Had he actually been tried and convicted of an insurrection, that would matter.
Which, I mean, a court did find him responsible for the insurrection, but I suppose that doesn’t matter to you.
I wish that were true. Not only was he not convicted of having anything to do with an insurrection, he wasn’t even charged with it. His attempt to remain in power is not the same as an attempt to overthrow the current power of the government.
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/jack-smith-didnt-charge-donald-trump-insurrection-rcna187578
Where does it say that a conviction is required? Self-executing.
Exactly. I’d doesn’t say convicted of participating in an insurrection. It says if you participate in an insurrection you are automatically intelligible for office unless the disability is removed by congress.
The Fifth Amendment.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…”
The fifth amendment doesn’t apply to impeachment, nor does it in the event of ballot qualifications. Like, the 5th amendment doesn’t apply to age restrictions on holding public office.
The law says,“If you engaged in insurrection, you are ineligible to hold federal office”. Just like is says,“If you are under 35, you are ineligible to hold the office of President”.
Correct. How do we determine that someone was involved in an insurrection? You can’t hold him accountable to the crime without conviction or adjudication. Otherwise it’s merely an accusation, and anyone could just say a person was part of an insurrection to bar them from holding office.
Disqualification from holding office is not punishment for a crime. If it were, everyone under age 35 would have a 5th Amendment argument to make.
Try again.
Held to answer does not mean sentenced. It means held responsible, or convicted. Accusations or charges are insufficient for accountability according to the Constitution.
Otherwise, you could just accuse every President you don’t like of an insurrection and they’d immediately be removed from office.
There’s a difference between being thrown in jail without a trial and… Being barred from the highest office of the country - a position of public service.
You have a right to freedom, not to a specific job
Without conviction, what is to stop anyone from simply accusing a President of participating in an insurrection and immediately having them removed from office?
They wouldn’t stand a chance of doing this with the states, it would cause a civil war.
They couldnt even get it past a Republican controlled vote.
They have Republicans in office that were not even born in the USA. People forget asshats like Ted Cruz.
Careful now, Rafael Edward Cruz does not want you using preferred names.
Did you just dead name Ted? The nerve!
Crazy thing is that 2 justices will almost always happily vote to throw the constitution in the trash if it helps with party politics.
She is an imposter, she’s wildly unqualified for the job, she is the least qualified judge to ever sit on the bench by a wide margin, she’s a DEI hire. Shes an imposter who absolutely in no way deserves her job but she’s not an imposter for “being skeptical” of ending birthright citizenship, I do predict she will fold like a house of cards over this and do nothing to protect birthright citizenship.