4 ms·
5-4 though, yikes! This shouldn't have even been close. With an impassioned 91 page dissent by Thomas. What a chode.
by ryandrake 4mo ago
5-4 though, yikes! This shouldn't have even been close. With an impassioned 91 page dissent by Thomas. What a chode.
- blktiger 4mo agoI should be unanimous, it's what the constitution says. If you don't like it you need to go through the amendment process.
- nonethewiser 4mo ago>I should be unanimous, it's what the constitution says Thats a tautology. “What the constitution says” is the thing in question.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- 5upplied_demand 4mo agoThe language couldn't be any clearer. The fact that it was questioned by people with a stated motive doesn't prove otherwise. "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."
- crote 4mo agoSure, but it leads to allowing for the possibility of interpreting "..the right to bear arms.." as "you are allowed to own the limbs of an Ursus arctos". There's plenty in the US constitution which is vaguely worded, but you have to twist its words an awful lot to deny birthright citizenship.
- sheept 4mo agoYes, and they can do that if they wanted to. The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution.
- goatlover 4mo agoAnd if they do enough of that, the other two branches might eventually be motivated to take action to counter it, like packing the courts or impeachments. Or telling SCOTUS to enforce it, as one president did.
- crote 4mo agoIf we live in a world where words have no meaning and the definition of the Constitution can be interpreted to be literally anything depending on today's mood of the Supreme Court, why even bother writing a Constitution at all? Why not get rid of the whole charade and just replace it with "whoever is appointed to the Supreme Court can make up any law as they feel like it"? It has the same meaning, but it's an awful lot clearer! In fact, I think there's a term for a ruler with complete power who's there for life, something like an "absolute monarchy"?
- voakbasda 4mo agoIn the past decade, the Constitution hasn’t slowed down the courts from creatively interpreting its various clauses. Their decisions have effectively amended many of those fundamental (and arguably inalienable) rights. Repeatedly.
- arpinum 4mo ago> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... It's the second part that is in dispute and is not clear from the constitution's text what exactly it means and who it excludes. And yes, it has always excluded some people born within the borders, it is not a meaningless statement.
- Windchaser 4mo agoWell, no, but almost everyone inside US borders is subject to US laws. The exceptions are rare: people in foreign embassies (which is "foreign soil"), invading armies, and indigenous tribes on tribal land.
- rayiner 4mo ago[flagged]
- Tadpole9181 4mo agoOh, please, this is just blatant sanewashing. Anyone who does not have an explicit exclusion is under the jurisdiction of US laws while on US soil. There's zero room for ambiguity unless you're coming in bad faith with politically motivated intent. Or are you seriously arguing there's an interpretation where illegal immigrants can commit any crime they want and can't be deported?
- rayiner 4mo agoWhere does it say "jurisdiction" only refers to criminal law? Diplomats aren't excluded from being subject to civil laws for "commercial activities," and U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats in suits pertaining to such activities.
- Windchaser 4mo agoThis then seems like an argument that the children of diplomats should be US citizens, not an argument against naturalized birth for immigrants.
- wang_li 4mo agoThis trivial reading of the constitution doesn't align with the reality. Two simple exceptions and a third not so simple are children of diplomats, children of invading armies, and native americans, who required an act of congress to give citizenship at birth.
- swrobel 4mo ago6-3 with Thomas, Alito & Gorsuch dissenting
- collinmcnulty 4mo ago5-4 on the Constitution. Kavanaugh's concurrence is that birthright citizenship is controlled by a law that Congress could change.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- ailun 4mo agoKavanaugh agrees with their reading of the 14th Amendment, though.
- Windchaser 4mo agoKavanaugh ruled that Trump's EO wasn't unconstitutional, just contrary to federal law, and Congress could change the law there if they wanted. So, this makes it only 5-4 upholding the 14th amendment. Which is gods-damned crazy. We are that close to overturning major civil rights.
- Tadpole9181 4mo agoThis would also overturn our ability to arrest or deport non-citizen, no? If the argument is that they are not under the jurisdiction of the US government, we cannot legally arrest or prosecute them? This would create chaos. Not to mention the tens of millions of citizens retroactively turned into stateless people!
- TheCoelacanth 4mo agoThese Calvinball judges would never let logic or consistency control their decisions to that extent.
- qalmakka 4mo agoThis is kind of crazy. The text of the amendment is as literal as it gets. If this had failed it would have basically meant emptying Congress of all of its powers, because now the executive can just pick whatever interpretation they deem fit to their goals and run with it. The rule of courts of law is to interpret the law, not to pick new creative meanings out of them. That's the role of the legislative power - otherwise what's stopping a court to reinterpret the meaning of any word in any legal text and allow the executive to rule by decree
- readthenotes1 4mo agoThe supreme Court ruled that South Carolina could not secede from the Union because the Constitution was merely a continuation of the agreements under the articles of confederation even though all states had to withdraw from the confederation to get into the union. After that bit of logic, nothing the supreme Court decides would surprise me
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]