this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025

93 points (98.9% liked)

news

320 readers

519 users here now

A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.

Rules:

Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
No link shorteners
No entire article in the post body

founded 3 months ago

MODERATORS

dude@lemmings.world

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could End Birthright Citizenship (truthout.org)

submitted 1 week ago by dude@lemmings.world to c/news@lemmings.world

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 week ago (7 children)

The Supreme Court can't just nullify parts of the Constitution.

[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And who is going to stop them?

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We, the people.

[–] Arancello@aussie.zone 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Maybe I’m cynical, but i don’t see ‘we the people’ having any impact on what your chosen leader does. They gave him immunity. He can and will do whatever he wants and you can just suck it up. He might decide that white women are garbage just like the haitian, somali, pakistani, etc etc etc people are. I mean he’s already gone after MTG with death threats.

[+] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They didn't "give him immunity" in that sense. He still can't just rewrite the Constitution all by himself. What they gave him...and every other president, both past and future....was something they already had. The authority to issue orders that other people would not have the legal right to give.

All the way back through history, presidents have made decisions that would, or should be considered "illegal" if anyone else had made them. They've engaged in wars with questionable motives, supplied weapons to enemies of the US, ordered the extrajudicial killings of individuals deemed a danger to the country, etc. If every president was immediately answerable to the legality of their decisions, they would not be able to act in a decisive way. So, the Supreme Court both retroactively and proactively granted the office of the president the legal authority to act without fear of prosecution.

But that does not give him the authority to simply "do whatever he wants". It gives him a certain amount of leeway, when performing his Constitutional duties...but it doesn't give him free reign to just violate the law itself. He still has to be acting within the official capacity that the office allows.

[–] kurikai@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Authority is only what people allow a person to have. If a president says jump, but no one jumps, he has no authority.

If he says jump, and people agree to jump, he has authority.

Its the system that's setup. And it depends if people follow the system

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

In this case, that authority is granted through the Constitution. If it's written in there, it counts. If it isn't, then it doesn't. Meaning, he can't just rewrite the Constitution, because the Constitution is very clear that he does not have the authority to do that. Neither does the judiciary.

The Constitution can only be amended by a supermajority in both the House and Senate, or by a National Convention. That's how the system is set up.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

For a counterpoint, see the 14th Amendment Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This orange piece of shit president we have isn't qualified under The Constitution to hold office. I wish people would understand how irrelevant The Constitution has become over the past decade.

[–] kurikai@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Constitution only means something if people agree it means something and follow it. It's a social construct. For example the usa constitution means nothing to other countries, because they choose it not to be anything. USA decided not to follow british rules. Hence the british rules are worthless in USA.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah. Except in that case, they forgot to actually define how to determine when someone has committed insurrection. It seemed pretty obvious at the time...all you needed to know was whether or not the person served in the Confederate army.

So, they left out any real definition beyond that. It isn't even included in the US criminal code, so you can't actually charge someone with that particular crime. Which makes that entire amendment, completely useless beyond its application to Confederate soldiers.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Attacking the power transfer is pretty obviously sedition. Courts can declare it and Colorado's courts did. Then SCOTUS lied and said only congress can

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Again, the Constitution itself isn't clear who decides that...which is why it fell to Congress. They can pass legislation that codifies it in the Criminal Code, or simply vote on it, directly. But simply declaring someone guilty of "sedition" without a trial or clear language defining it, then it isn't "obvious".

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, it's clear enough, other rights could be enforced by courts before legislation was made explicit, this one specifically is very clear on what's expected even if it doesn't say by who. That's exactly where courts can say "until congress decides otherwise, this applies here" like the Colorado supreme court did, because if the method isn't specified but the result is then the court can choose the method.

In the case of disqualification it's pretty clear - anybody could challenge a candidate's right to be on the ballot based on their actions, pointing to the disqualification clause, which the Colorado state did - and then a court with jurisdiction to try constitutional rights test it, like the Colorado Supreme Court did.

All the "ambiguity" they point at is fake wordplay, pretending to not be aware of the history behind the rules which makes it exceedingly clear. There's no such thing as a constitutional right that can't be invoked, no matter how much SCOTUS pretends otherwise.

Otherwise constitutional rights simply do not exist, because all you have to do to invalidate them is create a scenario not legislated before.

... Oh right, SCOTUS already blessed "qualified immunity" for cops where not even a law is good enough, but rather a court having to enforce that specific law in that specific scenario - TLDR SCOTUS is full of liars who are exceeding the authority that the constitution gives them.

... But the lower courts have also already started to push back on SCOTUS now fortunately - including instances of reissuing orders blocked by SCOTUS simply motivated by the fact that SCOTUS made the choice to not leave a binding opinion (note that rulings without opinions don't create binding precedence) and even calling SCOTUS liars on the opinions they did issue. And that's what Colorado should have done too - reissued the ban against Trump motivated by the fact the SCOTUS did not address the facts and thus their opinion is not applicable.

Right now the real long term solution is taking back a majority in congress and packing the court, declaring the prior SCOTUS rulings invalid (reinstating the 14A3 disqualification and formally accusing the now 6 former justices of material support of enemies of the state)

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In the case of disqualification it's pretty clear - anybody could challenge a candidate's right to be on the ballot based on their actions, pointing to the disqualification clause, which the Colorado state did - and then a court with jurisdiction to try constitutional rights test it, like the Colorado Supreme Court did.

And there is the problem with this logic. No due process was followed in the Colorado Supreme Court's decision...which is why it was invalidated. "Disqualification" in this case, was anything but "clear". Trump was never tried or convicted of seditious conspiracy...which is the closest thing to actual sedition that exists in the criminal code. And getting a conviction on that charge would be next to impossible unless he physically engaged in the crime...which he did not.

Attempting to gain a conviction based simply on the speech he gave, directing people to move on the Capitol would require prosecutors to prove his intent for violence...and that would require them to prove his thoughts and feelings in that moment. Unless they could produce the equivalent of a signed confession, they would not have been able to get that conviction.

The Colorado case didn't even try to do that. They made their argument the same way you are...by asserting your opinion that the crime should be considered "obvious", and that Trump should be found guilty without due process or any evidence to prove their claim. That is not how the law works.

This is why the case being brought by Jack Smith had far more merit, and almost certainly would have resulted in Trump's disqualification, and most likely jail time. He was bringing receipts. Emails, text messages, and internal White House memos and meeting agendas. That's what you need to convict someone of seditious conspiracy, when they didn't actively participate in the act of sedition. You have to at least prove the "conspiracy" part, beyond the vague assertion that "everyone knows he did it".

Unfortunately, Smith ran out of time, and the case was dropped. For the time being, anyway. It can always be brought again, once Trump is no longer in office, since no conclusive verdict was ever reached, the first time.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Then why does so many experts on constitutional history disagree?

Colorado didn't have jurisdiction to convict, but had jurisdiction to recognize it. The legal process over it was still ongoing then.

It would be absurd to assume you could just appeal yourself out of it, especially when the text clearly says courts can not declare you qualified again, NOT EVEN SCOTUS, 2/3 of congress has to do that - and they didn't

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Then why does so many experts on constitutional history disagree?

What "experts" disagree? The rule of law in this country doesn't work based on a declaration of guilt. In order for someone to be found guilty of a crime, you need more than a simple accusation...you need a conviction.

Colorado didn't provide that. None of the States that tried to remove Trump from the ballot, did. The bare minimum would have been for Congress to convict him ceremonially, through impeachment. But, they failed to do that because Democrats didn't have the votes.

That left only one option...bring charges against him in court, and have a jury decide whether or not his actions met the criteria.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/conservative-scholars-trump-disqualified

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/legal-experts-across-the-ideological-spectrum-agree-the-14th-amendment-disqualifies-trump-from-holding-office/

The standard under the constitution is what the standard under the constitution is, not that of current civil prosecution under federal and state law.

Precedence for nullifying the entirety of an invalid appointment and its consequences exist, and were applied when courts unrolled the illegal hostile takeover of USIP

The constitution explicitly were written to only require acts of congress to pardon, but not an act of congress to decide someone was guilty. It's not even close, that means courts gets to decide. SCOTUS lied.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Again...that is not HOW the law is applied in the United States. Unless you're saying that due process doesn't apply to this particular charge, then there needs to be some determining mechanism to say he did in fact commit that crime.

This is the entire foundation of the US justice system. You cannot simply declare someone guilty of something, and make it so. The 14th amendment would have to contradict everything else in the Constitution in order to be applied that way.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're missing the absolutely massive difference of the purpose of constitutional law VS federal or state law.

In a simplified form, the former is to constrain government actors to protect the people, the latter is to constrain individuals to protect them against each other.

There is no such thing as a right to be a president, but the constitution recognize the right to not be represented by seditionists. The constitution doesn't punish the candidate here in 14A3 - it simply constrains them from enacting the power of the government.

Criminal and civil punishment would be applied separately, where the candidate is directly afforded rights. But enacting constitutional restrictions is not limited by the results of civil and criminal procedures. Why else is congress allowed to impeach which just a vote?

Due process looks very different for the same reason - the process is designed to protect the public over the candidate, and the candidate's strongest claim is protecting representation, not protecting themselves.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

You're missing the absolutely massive difference of the purpose of constitutional law VS federal or state law.

Ummm...no. Constitutional law is the foundation for both Federal and State law. There is no "this VS that". They are all based on the legal framework outlined in the Constitution.

Due process is simply the process of due diligence that is required to ensure that the law is applied in a fair and equitable manner. It is based on the concept that you must provide evidence of someone's guilt in order to punish them for what they are accused of.

This applies just as much to the 14th amendment as it does to any other law on the books. The only difference is, the 14th amendment applied to people who never individually made it to the trial process before they were universally pardoned. But proof of their actions was still required for the 14th to be applied. What made it so much easier in that case, was the fact that it was relatively easy to find records that proved they served in the Confederate army. It was all basically a matter of public record, so anyone who looked into it, could find out.

If there was no "burden of proof" applied to the 14th, then those Democrats who recently posted a video reminding US soldiers that they have an obligation to refuse unlawful orders would all be disqualified from holding their positions. Why? Because Trump accused them of encouraginging sedition. If all it took was an accusation...then they'd already be considered guilty. Is that how you imagine the law should work?

[–] humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This argument is just one of definitions. One of you is talking about practical authority and the other is talking about theoretical authority under a given system of rules.

The rules of chess say a bishop only moves diagonally, but if the person you’re playing against pulls a gun on you and says they’ll move it wherever they want, it doesn’t do much good to say “but you can’t do that”.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Also the fact that they didn't decline this out of hand is clear sign they are considering it.

[–] Bakkoda@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

They absolutely can and absolutely have and absolutely will continue to do so. They are going to have to be "removed".

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

The Supreme Court's job is literally to interpret the Constitution. If they decide that it says every democrat owes Republican $50, then that's what it legally says. There is no higher court to appeal to. Their word is final.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Oh yeah we will see about that.

[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

They can change the definitions from beneath our feet instead

[–] oyo@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago

They literally just did by disenfranchising non-whites in Texas.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

Not a lot of ambiguity there, if you consider words to mean what they mean.

[–] Bakkoda@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

That's your first mistake. "Fake news" wasn't just a defection to say that's not true. Its an erosion of the meaning of words. All they need is just a crack to wriggle in and here we are with a bad faith SCOTUS willing to roll back anything based on semantics at best.

[–] Sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm tired boss. Anything else I have to say would be TOS.

[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

[–] Sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

Yes. Shorthand for saying that I want to say something that would violate most social media's terms of service, so I can't.

[–] OshaqHennessey@midwest.social 0 points 1 week ago

The fact it's even being considered is very telling once one understands it's entirely and obviously unconstitutional.