The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to take up the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s order on birthright citizenship declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The justices will hear Trump’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that struck down the citizenship restrictions. They have not taken effect anywhere in the country.

The case will be argued in the spring. A definitive ruling is expected by early summer.

  • plateee@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    2 days ago

    Fucking… Fuck.

    The constitution literally says:

    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.

    How can a presidential order… effectively a wishlist or at best guidance for how the executive branch should behave overturn the fucking Constitution.

    Does that mean the next Democrat can do an executive order wiping out the 2nd amendment?

    What in that absolute fuck is Roberts thinking?

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 days ago

      Does that mean the next Democrat can do an executive order wiping out the 2nd amendment?

      No. Keyword there being Democrat. It will be unconstitutional because a Democrat wants to do it, it would be ruled the other way if it was a Republican trying to do it.

      It’s the product of the clown show fake SCOTUS we have currently: desired outcomes first, rational to justify second.

    • ryper@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      subject to the jurisdiction thereof

      They’re not going to directly overturn anything, they’re going to argue that people who aren’t in the US legally aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, even though they’re subject to it’s jurisdiction enough to be arrested, tried and convicted. It’s generally been understood that the clause was meant to exclude people with diplomatic immunity or something like it, but SCOTUS will ignore that in the name of “originalism”.

      • plateee@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        So being born here becomes illegal, therefore no citizenship? To whom would that amendment then apply? Only white folk?

        Not to mention the craziness of applying this to births. There have been people harassed by ICE with Real IDs who have been told those are forgeries - do we expect parents to bring passports to the hospital to make sure their kids “count”?

    • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Some americans unironically believe that piece of parchment to be almighty, self-evident, irreproachable, and universally revered.

      Unfortunately those in power have transferred that belief to Trump. That’s all it took to abolish the rule of law.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Because the constitution is just words unless people act as though they are binding to all government officials. The republican party pushed through cynical movements to ensure that those who truly believe weren’t going to be nominated to the court under their presidencies