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.

    • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

      • Thunderbird4@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          So, by the supreme court?

          Well, we’re fucked with this conservative-ass court. They already stuck down Colorado’s court ruling.

      • obvs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Which, I mean, a court did find him responsible for the insurrection, but I suppose that doesn’t matter to you.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Where does it say that a conviction is required? Self-executing.

        • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          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…”

          • ubergeek
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            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”.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              23 hours ago

              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.

              • ubergeek
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                23 hours ago

                You watch them on TV doing it. And after you see them on TV doing it, they become unqualified for office, based on the due process afforded by the state attorney generals, and/or departments that manage who is and who isn’t qualified and can be placed on a ballot, per due process.

                You don’t need a court to adjudicate being of improper age, do you? Certain items can be considered “prima facie”… Basically: You, and everyone else watched it happens is considered prima facie for processes like this.

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  23 hours ago

                  We didn’t see Trump break into the White House. Unless it’s proven that he was a part of it, he’s not part of it. Innocent until proven guilty.

                  You need legal documentation to prove your age, yes. It must be issued by a state of federal governing body. You can’t just have your friend vouch for you.

                  • ubergeek
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    22 hours ago

                    We didn’t see Trump break into the White House.

                    We saw him tell his people to go do it, and the refuse to tell them to stop it.

                    That’s called “leading an insurrection”.

          • Nougat@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              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.

              • Nougat@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                “Held to answer” in this context, with the reference to a grand jury, is talking about criminal charges, convictions, and punishment.

                Or are you suggesting that a 34 year old would have to come before a grand jury before being disqualified from the office of President?

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  Are you suggesting there’s logic to your argument? You can’t just say, “he was part of an insurrection” and disqualify him from office. It needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law and he must be found guilty by a jury of his peers. Otherwise, anyone could accuse a sitting President of an insurrection and they’d be removed from office. Think about it.

                  • Nougat@fedia.io
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Guess what happened? Colorado Supreme Court found that he had participated, making him ineligible to appear on the Colorado ballot. This is appropriate, because states manage elections, that’s also written in the Constitution.

                    Then SCOTUS stepped in and swept that aside, is direct contradiction to the Constitution.

                    Their excuse was that a “patchwork” of states shouldn’t have this power. Even though they quite literally do.

                    So whatever squabble we’re having here is moot.

          • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            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

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Without conviction, what is to stop anyone from simply accusing a President of participating in an insurrection and immediately having them removed from office?

              • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Firstly, there’s a difference from being barred from the election proces, and already being in office and removed from it…

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  23 hours ago

                  So you think that someone can say “he was a part of an insurrection” the night before an election and allow the contender to automatically win?

                  You’re arguing semantics and completely missing the point. Conviction or adjudication is how we prove things happened. It’s how the law works.