Why Trump's Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship Will Backfire at the Supreme Court

Wednesday, January 22, 2025

Mark Joseph Stern: Donald Trump issued a patently unconstitutional executive order purporting to abolish birthright citizenship to children of millions of immigrants.

Posted by retort at 04:10 PM | 58 COMMENTS | permalink

President Trump announced an executive order that attempts to deny citizenship for countless children born on U.S. soil. Tell Congress: Protect birthright citizenship.

[image or embed]
-- ACLU (@aclu.org) January 21, 2025 at 5:35 PM

Comments

So when does Barron get deported along wiyj his Slovenian mother.
She wasn't born here and he is an anchor baby along with his sister Princess sparkle pony, Eric the dumber, and Cocaine junior.

#1 | Posted by a_monson at 2025-01-22 04:32 PM

Repeating what I posted yesterday:

I want to point out a couple of things:

1. The plain language of the 3rd section of the 14th says ------- should not be allowed to be president. This SC said otherwise

2. This SC created, out of whole cloth, immunity from prosecution for any and all crimes that fall under his core powers, whatever those are deemed to be, by his DoJ.

3. This SC created, out of whole cloth, justification for overturning RvW.

4. This SC disregarded the clear constitutional requirements and ruled on the Student Debt relief case.

5. This SC manufactured evidence to justify a clear violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state in the Bremerton Washington case.

It is HIGHLY likely that this SC will find justification for to approve -------'s EO in some form or another. Or ------- will simply ignore their decision.

------- has spent a decade arguing (without merit mind you) that the undocumented immigrants are an invading army. He and the SC will use that as justification to redefine birthright citizenship

What now seems absurd will become dreaded reality.

Mark My Words

#2 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-01-22 05:12 PM

While SCOTUS may agree with their king, the arguments presented to counter King Dotard II's point of view will be so forceful and comprehensive that the phony 'originalists' on the court will be twisted up so tightly in faulty logic that their open bias toward the king will be plain. They may as well say so: "Trump said it. I believe it. That ends it." Hell, if getting rid of the entire amendment were asked for and slavery reinstated, Clarence Thomas would vote to concur...

#3 | Posted by catdog at 2025-01-22 05:30 PM

Excellent analysis by Slate. I concur.

#4 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2025-01-22 05:45 PM

5-4 decision breaking for Hair Furor.

Republicans have a democracy to undermine. They're not about to let a minor detail like 126 years of precedent, the plain meaning of words, legislative history, or compassion for others stop them.

#5 | Posted by censored at 2025-01-22 05:51 PM

patently unconstitutional

The 14th amendment was already reduced to rubble when Trump was allowed to run for office after his insurrection.

#6 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-01-22 05:53 PM

I'm done being optimistic about upholding the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court is nothing more than a stage prop for Trump and the GOP.

#7 | Posted by Twinpac at 2025-01-22 06:17 PM

People with guns will defend themselves when met with violations of the 4th Amendment. Good luck, MAGANazis, you're gonna need it.

#8 | Posted by chuffy at 2025-01-22 08:12 PM

The constitution is meaningless when democrats fail to uphold it and republicans openly ignore it.

Trump is king.

The Republican Party will change America, much like FDR did. But in the opposite direction.

#9 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-01-22 08:18 PM

While SCOTUS may agree with their king, the arguments presented to counter King Dotard II's point of view will be so forceful and comprehensive {SNIP}

#3 | Posted by catdog

As were the arguments in the immunity case
in the insurrection case
in the student debt relief case
in the Dobbs case

You fail to recognize the radicals on the SC will justify ANYTHING they want to reach a foregone conclusion.

#10 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-01-22 08:31 PM

It is HIGHLY likely that this SC will find justification for to approve -------- EO in some form or another.

Unfortunately I think I have found the "justification".
www.heritage.org

It will be unfortunate if the SC rules in favor. Given the EO nature, next President nullifies, why take it to court? Then when Democrats are back in control, just change it again?

The point being, if SCOTUS does decide, its done. Of course I have a vested interest in this, I won't whine like the TruthHurts does over it, I have never seen someone whine so much about so little in all my short life.

#11 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-22 08:45 PM

- all my short life

That's actually the name of his youtube channel for SVC sufferers; the Severely Vertically Challenged.

It's rather drama queen stuff, but all the tiny outfits are admittedly just the cutest things!

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2025-01-22 09:24 PM

It just takes one.

#13 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-01-23 12:46 AM

I say start deporting anchor babies of people who are here illegally with Barron.

#14 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-01-23 06:51 AM

why take it to court?

Stop a ginormous ----- from hurting people needlessly.

#15 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-01-23 06:52 AM

Given the EO nature, next President nullifies, why take it to court? Then when Democrats are back in control, just change it again?
#11 | Posted by oneironaut

Because otherwise the Repubs will make sure the Dems never have control again, by disenfranchising children of illegals. But also laying the groundwork for Republican states to disenfranchise many poor US citizens who will have almost no way of proving that their parents were US citizens. Since they lack the resources to hire a private investigator to satisfy the onerous paperwork requirements the Republicans will institute.

#16 | Posted by censored at 2025-01-23 09:14 AM

I can see it now. Some attorney will find someone who has standing and will try the case pro bono.

Plaintiff lawyer reads to birthright clause of the Constitution and follows with, "I rest my case."

The judge smirks the entire time as a government lawyer tried to put up a defense.

Judge comes back with a 3 paragraph scathing and mocking opinion finding in favor of the plaintiff.

#17 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-01-23 12:34 PM

Given the current makeup of SCOTUS, I suspect the writer has a delusional outlook on the outcome.

You can count on Americans to do the right thing. After they've tried everything else.

#18 | Posted by morris at 2025-01-23 02:26 PM

Judge comes back with a 3 paragraph scathing and mocking opinion finding in favor of the plaintiff.
#17 | Posted by BellRinger

Are any of those judges named Clarence Thomas, Alito, [Future SCOTUS Justice] Aileen Cannon, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh or John Roberts in your fan-fiction?

#19 | Posted by censored at 2025-01-23 02:32 PM

They say the only thing more expensive than deporting illegals is not deporting them. I agree.

#20 | Posted by Robson at 2025-01-23 03:03 PM

They say the only thing more expensive than deporting illegals is not deporting them. I agree.

Posted by Robson at 2025-01-23 03:03 PM | Reply

You fools must not like to eat apparently

#21 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-01-23 03:06 PM

" 19 | POSTED BY CENSORED AT 2025-01-23 02:32 PM | FLAG: "

Dude, this EO is so ridiculous it will be shot down 9-0 if it reaches SCOTUS.

#22 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-01-23 05:39 PM

"Dude, this EO is so ridiculous it will be shot down 9-0 if it reaches SCOTUS."

You would think so, but I really wouldn't be surprised at all if one or two dissent.

#23 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-01-23 05:58 PM

We should have long ago mechanized farm and produce handling so we will quit hearing radical Democrats like AOC wanting to destroy our American culture and treasury with imported cheap labor and future radical Democrat victims that always hate USA.

#24 | Posted by Robson at 2025-01-23 06:30 PM

Dude, this EO is so ridiculous it will be shot down 9-0 if it reaches SCOTUS.
#22 | Posted by BellRinger

You think Mr. Ginny Thomas is going to buck Hair Furor? I guess time will tell.

#25 | Posted by censored at 2025-01-23 06:47 PM

" I guess time will tell.

#25 | POSTED BY CENSORED AT 2025-01-23 06:47 PM | FLAG: "

Yep. Its predictions are like a-h*les. Everyone has got one.

#26 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-01-23 07:16 PM

Yep. Its predictions are like a-h*les. Everyone has got one.
#26 | Posted by BellRinger

Sometimes two!

#27 | Posted by censored at 2025-01-23 07:59 PM

As mentioned elsewhere 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of Trump. This is an easy one.

#28 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-01-23 10:42 PM

As mentioned elsewhere 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of Trump. This is an easy one.

Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-01-23 10:42 PM | Reply

God you MAGA Trumpers are hella stupid.

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-01-23 10:53 PM

God you MAGA Trumpers are hella stupid.

He's not wrong. The 2016 election set the course for SCOTUS for a generation.

#30 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-01-23 10:59 PM

@#30 ... The 2016 election set the course for SCOTUS for a generation. ...

Maybe longer than a generation, depending upon how Pres Trump's autocracy fares.

#31 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-01-23 11:14 PM

---------- - The ---------- Sleeps Tonight (1984)
www.youtube.com

#32 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-01-23 11:16 PM

Hella stupid Laura? Hmmm Correctly predicted when Mar-a-lago was raided it would spectacularly backfire on the left, correctly predicted Biden would drop out, correctly predicted SCOTUS would rule in favor of Trump on immunity, correctly predicted Trump would win, Republicans would win the Senate, Correctly predicted there would be conditions for California receiving federal funds. There are more but this is a greatest hits of my correct predictions.

Now for my incorrects: wrongly predicted Republicans would take the Senate in the midterms in 2022.

My track record beats the ---- out yours, so yeah I stand by it and when it happens I'll remind you I was correct. Stay mad lewzer.

#33 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-01-24 12:57 AM

As mentioned elsewhere 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of Trump. This is an easy one.

You wanna cite some kinda source/reasoning for that ill advised prediction?

Gimme sumpin. Canudoit? Imguessinno!

#34 | Posted by et_al at 2025-01-24 01:37 AM

@#33 ... Correctly predicted when Mar-a-lago was raided it would spectacularly backfire on the left, ...

Did it?

... correctly predicted Biden would drop out, ...

Yeah, that was an easy one. The difficult part was when, though.

... correctly predicted SCOTUS would rule in favor of Trump on immunity, ...

Really? I do not remember your opinion at the time agreeing with how SCOTUS ruled.

... correctly predicted Trump would win,

Once October hit, that seemed to be obvious from the polling results.

And there is one other prediction your current alias also said, but now seems to be quite wrong.

It said that it was going to stop posting here.

So, the warped reality of an imaginary victory lap seems to override a former promise?

Stated differently, the revisionist history your current alias seems to promote seems to be, well, revisionist.

But do take the center stage and bow for the folk.

#35 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-01-24 01:51 AM

Now for my incorrects: wrongly predicted Republicans would take the Senate in the midterms in 2022.

My track record beats the ---- out yours, so yeah I stand by it and when it happens I'll remind you I was correct. Stay mad lewzer.

Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-01-24 12:57 AM | Reply

Are all of you millennials this flamboyantly stupid or are you a special case?? Look you haven't been here long enough to puff out your chest claiming to be clairvoyant. I've been here a whole lot longer than you. Officially 20 years today. Been longer but hey it is what it is. So go ahead and puff out your chest because you think you know everything. When you get my age. You will know you don't know everything and that's just fine by me. So do carry on. Typical MAGA Trumper.

#36 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-01-24 02:23 AM

Are all of you millennials this flamboyantly stupid [...]
#36 | Posted by LauraMohr [furiously bubbling in Green Party for president, again]

#37 | Posted by censored at 2025-01-24 11:22 AM

Are all of you millennials this flamboyantly stupid [...]
#36 | Posted by LauraMohr [furiously bubbling in Green Party for president, again]

Posted by censored at 2025-01-24 11:22 AM | Reply

If Democrats would pick better candidates they'd get My vote. Until then I'll vote accordingly. Just sayin

#38 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-01-24 11:43 AM

Really? I do not remember your opinion at the time agreeing with how SCOTUS ruled.
- gaslighter

It wasn't difficult, every government official has qualified immunity.

#39 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-24 12:06 PM

If Democrats would pick better candidates they'd get My vote. Until then I'll vote accordingly. Just sayin
#38 | Posted by LauraMohr

The votes of you and your type will bring you pain. And I promise to care accordingly. Just sayin

#40 | Posted by censored at 2025-01-24 12:09 PM

Making the Perfect the enemy of the Better than the other guy's candidate is self-defeating.

As Noam Chomsky pointed out.

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2025-01-24 12:13 PM

#41

Hilarious, elite Dems throw up a ------ candidate, and all corky can muster is "she wasn't perfect but it shouldn't matter".

#42 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-24 12:14 PM

Candidates One, remember they had two this go around.

#43 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-01-24 12:19 PM

#42

Some possible perceived weaknesses shouldn't matter when the other candidate is a lying criminal rapist traitor.

But with voters like you who have no sense of decency or morals or patriotism, apparently they do.

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2025-01-24 12:22 PM

But with voters like you who have no sense of decency or morals or patriotism, apparently they do.
#44 | Posted by Corky

For what it's worth, I think "BernieBro who Loves Trump" OneIronTurd isn't one of our voters. Chairman Pooh Bear or Pres Thieving Moscow Midget, on the other hand, might be able to count him as one of their constituents.

#45 | Posted by censored at 2025-01-24 12:29 PM

Some possible perceived weaknesses shouldn't matter when the other candidate is a lying criminal rapist traitor.

But with voters like you who have no sense of decency or morals or patriotism, apparently they do.

Posted by Corky at 2025-01-24 12:22 PM | Reply

PERCEIVED??? Kamala couldn't even get her own candidacy off of the ground 4 years ago. What made you think she would win this time around?? I get why Biden pushed her onto the electorate but come on and get real.

#46 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-01-24 12:33 PM

If Democrats would pick better candidates they'd get My vote. Until then I'll vote accordingly. Just sayin

#38 | Posted by LauraMohr

So why should I care about your opinion on Trump?

#47 | Posted by Sycophant at 2025-01-24 12:49 PM

Neither could Bernie Sanders. Repeatedly. But that doesn't stop you from writing:
Laura & Bernie 4Eva!!!

inside a cartoon heart from now until eternity.

#48 | Posted by censored at 2025-01-24 12:50 PM

Really? I do not remember your opinion at the time agreeing with how SCOTUS ruled.
- gaslighter

It wasn't difficult, every government official has qualified immunity.

#39 | Posted by oneironaut

Qualified Immunity is for Civil Suits, not Criminal Cases.

Do you ever have a clue?

#49 | Posted by Sycophant at 2025-01-24 12:52 PM

So why should I care about your opinion on Trump?

Posted by Sycophant at 2025-01-24 12:49 PM | Reply

Like my vote matters?? My state went for Trump. They've been going to the Republican party for decades now. I don't count in my state.

#50 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-01-24 12:53 PM

If the Democratic brand was fundamentally broken and needed to be thrown out, this election would have been a complete blowout."

Absolutely garbage.

The Dems ran against the worst candidate in history with enough red flags and baggage that he should have been a joke.

And lost.

"Oh but the vote count was close in swing states."

IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CLOSE AT ALL.

Dems are owned by corporate money. Harris pumped the brakes on anti-corporate themes to protect her donor class. Biden and Co refused to go after price gouging leading inflation or Wall Street buying up homes nationwide.

I was happy Obama took on health insurance and pissed them off but he did nothing about fraud leading to the 2008 collapse. Now the Dems have gotten even worse.

For now, I'm done with the Dems.

Posted by Sycophant at 2024-12-18 10:20 AM | Reply

#51 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-01-24 12:56 PM

"Correctly predicted when Mar-a-lago was raided it would spectacularly backfire on the left,"

The "left" did not raid Mar-do-Lardo.

The FBI raided it. With a warrant authorized by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and approved by Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, following a criminal referral by the National Archives and Records Administration.

#52 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-01-24 01:27 PM

Qualified Immunity is for Civil Suits, not Criminal Cases.
Do you ever have a clue?
#49 | Posted by Sycophant

If in duties of the office, there's no criminality.

This is true for all government officials.

Which is why Trump was charged in all sorts of cases, they had nothing to do with the office and it's functions.

#53 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-01-24 01:37 PM

- I don't count in my state.

Yet you assail people in states where their votes do count for not agreeing with you.

- Do you ever have a clue?

#49 | Posted by Sycophant

Not to be obvious, but that answer to that is NO, he has never had a clue. Never even smelt one.

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2025-01-24 03:30 PM