The Supreme Court struck down a 2025 executive order that sought to end birthright citizenship, jettisoning the definition of citizenship at the heart of the American Republic for almost 250 years.
Border security will now be the thing. For sure. It’s a shame because it might make us a less open and welcoming society, but the court has given the nation no obvious alternative now.
Judgement makes no sense. What is the point of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" if its removal would make no difference to the interpretation.
Just as the Supreme Court created legal gay marriage, legal and then illegal abortion, legal and then illegal DEI, all of this on split votes, it's clear that to go to the original focus of granting ex-slaves guarantee of citizenship would be quite within the Court's purview. Crucial issues changing our culture should be, like Brown vs. Board of Ed., unanimous. Indeed, what is the point of "subject to the jurisdiction," if its absence changes nothing?
The kind of majority ( of 1) that decided this issue, like the 1 SCOTUS vote that decided the Presidency of the USA ( Gore vs Bush) and the destiny of the Free World , is a common sense aberration that should be considered as well.
Ultimately, it means this was a half-baked decision that hurts the US, disrespects the historic context of the Constitution , and creates new mayhem. May it be appealed and reversed.
Some interesting arguments here but the text of the 14 Amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is not fundamentally about natural rights or the Declaration of Independence, but constitutional rights. The dissent makes some fair points but the majority with the text, history, and over 100 years of precedent have the stronger argument.
This post says a whole lot of nothing. Little is more clearly established in the law and practice than that being born in the country makes you a citizen. This writer is an idiot.
Border security will now be the thing. For sure. It’s a shame because it might make us a less open and welcoming society, but the court has given the nation no obvious alternative now.
Judgement makes no sense. What is the point of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" if its removal would make no difference to the interpretation.
Just as the Supreme Court created legal gay marriage, legal and then illegal abortion, legal and then illegal DEI, all of this on split votes, it's clear that to go to the original focus of granting ex-slaves guarantee of citizenship would be quite within the Court's purview. Crucial issues changing our culture should be, like Brown vs. Board of Ed., unanimous. Indeed, what is the point of "subject to the jurisdiction," if its absence changes nothing?
The kind of majority ( of 1) that decided this issue, like the 1 SCOTUS vote that decided the Presidency of the USA ( Gore vs Bush) and the destiny of the Free World , is a common sense aberration that should be considered as well.
Ultimately, it means this was a half-baked decision that hurts the US, disrespects the historic context of the Constitution , and creates new mayhem. May it be appealed and reversed.
Some interesting arguments here but the text of the 14 Amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is not fundamentally about natural rights or the Declaration of Independence, but constitutional rights. The dissent makes some fair points but the majority with the text, history, and over 100 years of precedent have the stronger argument.
Does the decision allow a mother here illegally to remain? What is THE LAW?
This post says a whole lot of nothing. Little is more clearly established in the law and practice than that being born in the country makes you a citizen. This writer is an idiot.
What about the mother?
I respect Amy Coney Barrett as near equally as I do Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
It will be troubling to find them on opposite sides of what constitutes truth.
Surely Barrett should not be seen as declaring what she wishes was the law, but as what IS the law.