this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
98 points (99.0% liked)

politics

24396 readers
2147 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But now that he has put an order out ending Birthright Citizenship and the SCOTUS ruled that nationwide injunctions aren't applicable, can't there now be a patchwork of enforcement where red regions will not honor birthright citizenship while blue regions do?

It seems like in the short term, there is going to be a lot of carnage and damage because this unconstitutional executive order will be followed by his loyalists.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He can put out an order requiring the sky to be green. It's just words, that's the point. The only thing he can affect with an EO are things where his sycophants can enable it to the extent they are involved in the executive branch. NOT the Judicial Branch. The judges who order and enforce the laws can't just ignore the constitution. Birthright Citizenship is in the constitution.

What the SCOTUS ruling here adds is some dumbshit to make the process more stupid than it needs to be for people without legal status it seems, but it is not a change to the law, or enforcement. That needs to be understood.

All it's going to take is a specifically angled case to ask the question "Is birthright Citizenship in the constitution? Oh, it is? Well then it's constitutional"

Another court case that isn't about the procedural nature of obtaining said documentation or status will shut this shit down in a heartbeat, but as others have noted, the legal process of getting it there takes longer than most would like.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The judges who order and enforce the laws can't just ignore the constitution. Birthright Citizenship is in the constitution.

Again, I'm really sorry to burst you bubble but do think that understanding the reality of our situation and tearing down the illusions is important.

  1. The Judicial is charged with interpreting the law and arbitrarion. Not enforcement. That's on the Executive branch.
  2. The US Constitution has been increasingly ignored in both the Judicial and Executive branches since about the 60s. For example, the SCOTUS invented "qualified immunity" in 1967 to allow the Executive branch to effectively ignite constitutional rights. Their fuckery means that "it literally says it in the US Constitution" is insufficient to show evidence harm from being deprived of constitutional rights. Effectively, an identical case must have been tried, which makes it nearly impossible (because of the circular dependency).
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago
  1. You misunderstand this. The Executive is bound to ensure that laws are enforced, but not tasked or powered to do so directly. Congress controls the purse and lawmaking, and the constitution is very clear that President must ENSURE what Congress passes is enforced. That's extremely clear in Article ii Section iii, and is referred to as the "Take Care Clause".

  2. Sure, this is not untrue, but as we've seen over and over again, if ruling against the constitution, you always create a dead end. So they've just passed something stupid that is technically an interpretation in its most idiotically simple way, but they've then created a disaster on the other side of the legal process. It can't work both ways. Unless they gain control over every judge and jurisdiction to exactly as Trump says, they won't have the ability to control jack shit in this sense. Even after today's ruling, the experts are already saying they've just opened the door to completely drown the courts and SCOTUS with challenges and really fuck over Trump because they've closed one door foolishly, and opened another to attack this bullshit from.