• osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 days ago

    2/3rds 2/3rds and 3/4ths are the requirements for a constitutional amendment, which is the requirement to change the citizenship granting mechanism for the country.

    Or for SCOTUS to just decide the words mean something different now like a true ‘originalist’

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Oh, I misunderstood.

      Yes, that’s if he intends to amend the Constitution. Lucky for him, he can deviate from the Constitution all he wants without repercussions, since the Republican controlled Congress will not hold him accountable to the document, and the conservative SCOTUS will not overturn an unconstitutional law.

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        the conservative SCOTUS will not overturn an unconstitutional law.

        I think you might be surprised here. Conservative judges are inclined to follow the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution at the time it was written. There’s not much wiggle room in this:

        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.

          • Zak@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I could imagine them trying to include corporations… but seriously, Constitutional textualism is a cornerstone of what it means to be a conservative judge. They’re pretty content to ignore or reverse precedent, but not to get creative about something spelled out plainly in the Constitution.

            • Nougat@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              2 days ago

              … but not to get creative about something spelled out plainly in the Constitution.

              And yet, presidents now have extremely wide criminal immunity.

              • Zak@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                There’s nothing in the text of the Constitution that says they don’t.

                Like most sane people, I think that decision was overly broad and has dangerous implications. On the other hand, if Congress could make crimes about Article 2 powers, that would effectively allow Congress to take those powers for itself by statute, overruling the Constitution’s assignment of them to the president.

            • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Lmao, “what it means to be a conservative judge”

              Bruh there are no values, being a conservative judge just means youre either comically dumb and fail upwards, or you are actually pretty smart, lack any sort of morals or decency, and know how to manipulate yhose around you for your benefit and their loss.

              Lets not try to write conservatives as if they actually have something they stand behind now

    • procrastitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Their plan is to claim that the children of undocumented immigrants are somehow not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not granted citizenship based on the 14th amendment.

      Yes, it really is as stupid as it sounds; claiming that undocumented immigration gives your descendants the equivalent of diplomatic immunity.