this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
119 points (96.9% liked)

News

30502 readers
3271 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
all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 minutes ago

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 58 minutes 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 hour 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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 hour ago

This is fucking Stephen Miller's Nazi wet dream

[–] [email protected] 42 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 27 minutes ago

That’s technically not what they ruled on

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The problem is and has always been "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

People have been twisting that to mean that anyone that isn't born to American citizen parents means that you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 hour ago

Funny because that sounds to me like the "illegals"can't be illegal then. Sounds like they're not subject to the law anymore.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 hours ago

That's what the Constitution says, and Trump now has nothing that can legally stop him from doing it.

Which means the Constitution is dead letter.

[–] [email protected] 57 points 4 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago

On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder.

So is this retroactive? Do states that are not challenging take effect in 30 days? Who the fuck knows. Make sure to do jack shit to stop all of this.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-may-rule-allowing-enforcement-trump-birthright-citizenship-2025-06-27/

[–] [email protected] 36 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Oh look. One of the things we said would happen, happened.

Thank God 88 million people skipped their final chance to vote in protest, apathy, stupidity, or all three. Boy that sure showed us!

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

But don't you see? By losing, we sent a message to the Democratic Party leadership and now they're totally moving left!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 41 minutes ago

all those cuomo endorsements really show they’re willing to listen

[–] [email protected] 103 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 4 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 hour 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.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 4 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours 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

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 hours 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?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

They effectively did. They are Supreme Court justices, not idiots.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 hours ago

It doesn't sound like those two things are mutually exclusive.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 hours ago

this is insane