691
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
691 points (99.6% liked)
politics
31286 readers
2815 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
From the article. This is basically their plan for once the Supreme Court allows it.
The court didn't actually rule that Trump's changes to birthright citizenship are legal, they only ruled that the lower courts couldn't issue nationwide injunctions to stop him.
Is that functionally different in your mind? Perhaps it is slightly different if we assume they're going to stop here and not take it any further but that seems obviously untrue so I'm not sure why the distinction matters.
It's different because the court is still likely to have to rule on the actual problem eventually. They might get around to ruling that Trump's changes are unconstitutional, but they have this weird idea that the "harm" Trump would suffer by having his probably-unconstitutional plans put on hold while courts sort out their legality is somehow greater than the harm suffered by all the people who will be affected if the plans go ahead.
This is like that time when the supreme court had to hold deliberations on whether the local police in an active shooter situation could take the gun away from the shooter, and potentially violate the shooter's second amendment rights. They didn't rule on it right away, but issued a ruling that lower courts could not rule on the constitutionality of disarming the active shooter, and had to allow the shooter to continue shooting until the second amendment implications could be considered by the supreme court. Then they went into recess.
Edit: None of this happened
That's like the difference between banning abortion nationwide and just allowing states to ban it
That doesn't explain how they plan to get around the 14th amendment, though. It just outlines what they plan to do, once they have.
The Supreme Court, obviously. They will just explain how the wording is confusing and doesn’t actually mean birthright citizenship the way we typically do. Fact that they told Trump to start issuing guidance tells me they are going to tailor their ruling to that guidance.
Actually, the way they worded that decision made it sound like they wanted to hear how they would go about doing this..."legally". Meaning, what rationale could they come up with, that wouldn't violate the 14th amendment. They are willing to entertain arguments to that effect, but aren't just going to sign off on a direct violation of the Constitution.
This latest outline from the Trump administration doesn't do that. It just elaborates on what they would do, if they were allowed to proceed, anyway. But it says nothing about how they would actually circumvent the 14th amendment.