• TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Can he end it? Probably not.

    Can he sweep up US citizens in his quest to destroy our economy, food supply, and housing?

    Absolutely

  • AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    4 hours ago

    “Though it’s impossible to say what the Supreme Court may ultimately decide, history and precedent isn’t on Trump’s side.”

    “Hold my beer squee”

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      LOL, how cute. You think that still matters.

      Nothing stopping both houses from just reducing the threshhold because fuck you that’s why, getting Trump to sign off on it, then getting backing by the Supreme Court. Sure, that’s completely at odds with the Constitution, but who’s left to enforce it?

      We already know that at least half the states will just blindly go along with it and say it’s to control immigration, or just because MAGA, or because fuck you that’s why. Threaten the rest with withholding of all federal funding until they get on board and watch how many fall in line. Sure, that’s even more highly illegal, but again…who’s going to stop them? Laws don’t mean shit if there is nobody willing or able to enforce them.

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

      Republicans have just over 50% of the Senate and the House. They don’t have a 2/3 supermajority.

      They’ll still pass the legislation by voting in a block, but they can’t push it through without a vote if they don’t have a supermajority.

      • osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 hours 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
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours 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
            ·
            3 hours 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
                ·
                3 hours 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
                  8
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

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

                  And yet, presidents now have extremely wide criminal immunity.

        • procrastitron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours 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.

  • ASDraptor@lemmy.autism.place
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    It’s gonna be fun if they crack down on immigration and someone argues that kethamine karen is not american and has to go…