596
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mienshao@lemm.ee 254 points 1 month ago

This is the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution. As a lawyer for the federal government, I need everyone to know that this officially marks the end of United States rule of law. Protect yourselves, and godspeed.

[-] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 79 points 1 month ago

Billionaires and politicians. No one else matters. Don't be distracted by the broke Nazis at ICE. The true threat numbers in the hundreds.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 17 points 1 month ago

I'm coping so hard by hoping that we swing very hard to the left, if only just so that these cynical, fossilized assholes live to see their bullshit rulings used against them.

[-] gatohaus@eviltoast.org 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is definitely worrisome.

But is it the end of the Constitution quite yet?

The Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in on the executive order trying to negate birthright citizenship, they said that lower courts couldn’t block EO’s at a national level.

Implicitly, their not commenting on the EO feels like they’ll let it stand when the case arrives, if they choose to hear it. Then I’d say the US Constitution is toast.

I’m an engineer, not a lawyer. I’d love to hear what someone more knowledgeable about this thinks.

[-] voracitude@lemmy.world 81 points 1 month ago

They ended the ability of the Judiciary to check the Executive. That's the very foundation of the government, set out in the Constitution: https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation01.html

So yeah, it's the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There isn't going to be a single moment where the constitution stops existing. It's not like a light switch. It's a rapid erosion, like the start of a landslide, and the snow is already moving

[-] TotallynotJessica 16 points 1 month ago

Yes it is. Trump can effectively ignore any constitutional amendment for more than long enough to start sending people to concentration camps. This also probably isn't the end of it, as I doubt the justices will be more willing to stand up to him in the future once he's consolidated power further.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] WatDabney@fedia.io 150 points 1 month ago

So literally what happened here is Trump said, "I want to violate the Constitution" and the Supreme Court said, " Okay — go ahead."

And that's it for the rule of law in the US.

All that's left now is to tally the mass murders along the way to the inevitable collapse of the US, and to hope that our descendents can build something better out of the rubble.

[-] SCmSTR 14 points 1 month ago

The US collapsing is going to absolutely affect the rest of the world. This is very VERY bad.

[-] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 117 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Lest we forget:

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Pretty hard to argue that “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” doesn’t mean what it clearly states. It’s not even in legalese. The fact that this wasn’t laughed out of court says everything.

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It is just a fucking piece of paper.

If the judges and politicians and police don't care and no one else can do anything then it means nothing.

It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.

North Korea of America is where we are now.

Uggh. I can work out whether to upvote you for the accurate summary of the source of law & state power or downvote you for the utter idiocy of the invasion statement.

Russia can't - they're struggling to take over a country a fifth their size and have burnt through their Soviet stockpiles.

UK & EU certainly won't invade, at most they'd send a peacekeeping force to protect civilians at a UN request (UN probably wouldnt pass it)

Canada will be stretched just keeping fighting out of its borders.

Mexico might just on principle (payback's a bitch) but has bugger all capacity.

Same for South American Asian and African countries.

That leaves China, and if you think the Chinese are stupid enough to insert themselves in your civil war and create a sole enemy for both sides to fight you have zero understanding of the Chinese strategy.

The Chinese will wait for you all to decimate the country and each other, then come in and buy up the bits they want. Oh and invade Taiwan while y'all are busy destroying your country.

Putin's plan to destroy the US has worked magnificently.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 77 points 1 month ago

If you end birthright citizenship, then nobody gets to be a citizen by birth. If you can't be a citizen by birth, the only way to become a citizen is naturalization. If the only citizens are naturalized people, the country is 100% immigrants.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 month ago

And if immigrants don’t need due process and can be sent to concentration camps then it’s really easy to make anyone disappear

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 month ago

If immigrants don't get due process, then nobody gets due process.

You could arrest Bill Clinton and claim he's an immigrant. If that means he doesn't get due process, he can never prove he's not an immigrant, and so he's stuck in Guantanamo forever.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[-] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee 76 points 1 month ago

At what point does everyone say "if he's not following the law, then neither should we"?

[-] 800XL@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

Guilty. I've stolen 2 elections already and dogwhistled so much

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 month ago

At the very least, I would like to see every Democratic lawmaker calling for the open violation of Supreme Court rulings. They are a fundamentally illegitimate institutions. Their opinions should be given less respect than the opinions of a shit-covered hobo holding an "the end is near" sign by the side of the road.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] SCmSTR 71 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Wait ... Doesn't "citizenship" mean where you're born?

It's either where you're born or where you live. Which is it?

Wtf even is citizenship then?

"I'm from Ireland" is synonymous with "I'm Irish"... Right?

So if you're born in America, wouldn't you... Be American?

If he takes that away, you aren't just magically from nowhere, you're still American.

This is stupid and makes no sense, it's all just classism and racism. I hate everything.

[-] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 98 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Its the same as the election between Obama and McCain, in ways a lot of people dont realize.

Obama, by virtue of having a non-traditional name and not being white, was hounded by birthers despite being born an American citizen clear as day with absolutely no question about it.

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone the year before people born in the canal zone were granted citizenship at birth. Arguably he was not a citizen at birth under the definitional requirements of the constitution to be president. He was naturalized as a citizen retroactively.

Palin is part native, and was pretty heavily involved with Alaska Native movements that rejected US sovereignty and thereby rejected claims to citizenship. But no one talked about that either because shes also largely seen as just being a white American.

And yet Obama, who was American thru and thru from birth without question, never was involved with Hawaiian sovereignty movements, is the one whos citizenship was questioned.

“White makes right” is the rule of law to these people

[-] klemptor@startrek.website 23 points 1 month ago

Sounds about white.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 month ago

Ted Cruz ran in the Republican presidential primary despite being an Albertan

[-] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Doesn’t “citizenship” mean where you’re born?

Only in the new world continents. In Africa, Europe, and Asia it normally means what country your parents and grandparents are from, unless someone in the chain naturalises to a different country.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Almacca@aussie.zone 19 points 1 month ago

You've just given it ten times more thought than the Trump team has.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 66 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

He is much closer to his stated goal

The power to deport any natural Born Citizen on demand for no reason at all

He has stated he wants.... Needs this

On Exactly why he has been vague

[-] KarlHungus42@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago

First ones to be deported should be melania and baron

[-] 13igTyme@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

Jr, Ivanka, and Eric would also be removed. Tiffany is the only "true" American.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 38 points 1 month ago

Looking into it this whole thing is way more complicated than the headline makes it sound. The Supreme Court didn't actually give Trump permission to end birthright citizenship, they just made a ruling about how courts can block federal policies nationwide.

Basically what happened: Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by multiple federal judges who said it's probably unconstitutional. Instead of arguing the constitutional issue (which he'd probably lose), Trump's team asked the Supreme Court to limit judges' power to issue nationwide blocks on policies. The Court agreed 6-3, but they specifically did NOT rule on whether ending birthright citizenship is legal.

So now Trump's celebrating like he won, but really all that changed is the procedural stuff. The constitutional problems with his order are still there: the 14th Amendment is pretty clear about birthright citizenship. Lower courts still have to reconsider their rulings, and immigrant rights groups are already filing new lawsuits.

It's more of a tactical win for Trump that might let him try to implement parts of his agenda in some places, but the fundamental legal challenges haven't gone away. The Truthout article is at least a little hyperbolic imo.

[-] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 52 points 1 month ago

He did win though, because by telling federal judges that their rulings against executive orders cannot be.. Federal, nationwide, the supreme court took away about 99% of the (already mediocre) checks and balances against Trump's power (and any presidents power). To pass it off as just some procedural stuff misses how impactful this is, the only court powers that can stop his kings laws by edict ('executive orders') now are: case by case state-based rulings for federal judges, and the supreme court itself for nationwide rulings.

This is largely what Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent: this is a huge expansion of presidential powers by the SC removing restrictions from the president, over an issue that is abundantly clearly illegal (denying birthright citizenship), and it leaves the door wide open to further illegal orders.

Her dissent is worth a read, it begins on page 54: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

[-] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Fair point.

I was definitely too focused on the narrow "did they rule on birthright citizenship" question and missed the bigger picture. You're right that this is way more than just procedural, it's a massive shift in executive power.

The fact that federal judges can now only issue piecemeal, state-by-state rulings essentially breaks their ability to actually check presidential overreach in any meaningful way.

I think I got too caught up in fact checking the specific headline and missed how big Trump's win actually was here, just not in the way the headlines suggested. Thanks for the correction.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] SaltSong@startrek.website 37 points 1 month ago

Can Trump prove his citizenship, if this policy goes through?

[-] Zier@fedia.io 25 points 1 month ago

His 1st & current wife were not citizens when those children were born. They should be deported.

[-] uss_entrepreneur@startrek.website 33 points 1 month ago

As much as I dislike the decision, they did not give the “ok”

The ruling was about how the lower courts handle injunctions. The court cases are playing out still.

I still hate the decision.

[-] MasterBlaster@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

Effectively, anyone who does not have a lawyer who files a specific suit in a very short period of time can be deported at will. Saying it does not end the 14th Amendment is an exercise in English language mechanics, not in how it ends up affecting the world.

If you are high school student who is shipped off to a foreign prison, how likely do you think it is somebody will fight to bring you back?

[-] dis_honestfamiliar@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 month ago

Bunch of pansies. All they had to do is say No

And would have been the end of it. But they are scared of him for w/e reason. Trump can't even remember Barrett.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] frenchfryenjoyer@lemmings.world 26 points 1 month ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago

this is insane

[-] teamevil@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

This is fucking Stephen Miller's Nazi wet dream

[-] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 24 points 1 month ago

From what I understand, its not the supreme court ok'd his move rather they stopped other lower federal courts from creating injunctions that stop the entire process, and they now limited them to stopping only those who bring forth lawsuits and who are affected by whatever it is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] guyoverthere123@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 month ago

So... He's goin to deport Baron Trump then, right?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Karrion409@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

We're at a point where imo the only way to fix things here is captial C and captial D Civil Disobedience. At risk of getting put on a list and deported or smth I'm not gonna go into specifics but I'm sure you can figure out what I'm getting at.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The supreme court did not give the OK. They said that you have to sue individually or as a class action and kicked it back down to the lower court. And several orgs are currently petitioning for class action status.

Edit: they also said courts can't issue nationwide injunctions, they have to be narrower.

[-] jacksilver@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

When talking about birthright citizenship, how do you get narrower than nationwide injunctions?

What the Republicans in the Supreme Court seem to be arguing is that the president can ignore the law as long as the people affected can't afford a lawsuit.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

Wouldn't it be simpler if he just ended citizenship? Then he could freely oppress just about anyone.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 month ago

I'm curious if this means that certain cities or states will become citizenship havens because their local courts decided to provide injunctions for their jurisdiction.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I’d like to pay a reporter to ask Trump how it feels to wipe his ass with the Constitution. I’d think it would be coarse and unpleasant, but he keeps doing it.

Ill just stick with Charmin or whatever.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
596 points (100.0% liked)

News

31365 readers
2177 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS