re: Birthright Decision Coming Out Today

quote:

---

How can Congress define Constitutional baselines?

---

Look at how congress has imposed limitations to the Second Amendment……

They absolutely can redefine “Jurisdiction” and it’s interpretation in the 14th Amendment.

quote:

---

Look at how congress has imposed limitations to the Second Amendment……

---

They didn't redefine the 2A, they just said there are limits on the 2A...which is bullshite, mind you, but it's not the same thing conceptually.

From Heller

quote:

---

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.

---

Now, if Congress tried to find some authority to regulate behaviors the 14A purportedly protects and made the same argument? It would be similar, but it would face certain scrutiny that would be hard to survive. That's a completely different action/analysis, though.

To compare the attempt for Congress to redefine the constitutional baseline of the 2A, you'd have to see them define "militia" or "security" or "arms" with legislation, which would mean Heller could be reversed by Congress with this simple trick.

quote:

---

Supreme Court just ruled you can deport illegals without due process

---

The legal determination that they are not here in accordance with our immigration law, and their subsequent deportation IS the process.

commie alert and a known **** AKA diclicker

quote:

---

Supreme Court just ruled you can deport illegals without due process, a constitutional right for US citizens.

---

Link?

ACB and Roberts will frick us so I am not holding breath.

quote:

---

rltiger

---

They can access the right to enter through the processes already afforded them. No need for taxpayer funds to go towards them staying here and gumming up the courts.

You guys are foolishly optimistic.

The Supreme Court will almost certainly rule that Trump’s executive order unconstitutionally restricts 14th Amendment birthright citizenship, affirming longstanding precedent like Wong Kim Ark and blocking the policy.

Justices’ skeptical April 2026 oral arguments and near-universal lower-court rejections of the order make this a certainty IMO.

So... here is how messed up AI is.... I put into the windows search bar about the SCOTUS decision on birthright citizenship and this is what it wrote:

quote:

---

Copilot Search Branding

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens at birth, consistent with the 14th Amendment and the precedent set in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Background
The case Trump v. Barbara challenged President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which sought to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or temporarily present

. The legal question centered on the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which states: “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”

Key Precedent: Wong Kim Ark
The Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark established that a child born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents who were domiciled in the country is a U.S. citizen at birth

. The Court interpreted the Citizenship Clause to incorporate the common-law principle of jus soli (citizenship by birth on U.S. soil), with narrow exceptions for children of foreign diplomats or hostile occupying forces

Arguments in Trump v. Barbara
Trump Administration: Argued that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires the child to owe direct and immediate allegiance to the U.S., effectively excluding children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. They emphasized the concept of “domicile” as central to determining allegiance
.
Challengers: Maintained that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all children born in the U.S., regardless of parents’ immigration status, and that Wong Kim Ark supports this broad interpretation. They argued that domicile was a factual detail in Wong Kim Ark, not a legal requirement
.
Supreme Court Decision
The Court reaffirmed the principle that birth in the United States generally confers citizenship, consistent with the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark

. The ruling clarified that the limited exceptions—children of foreign diplomats and hostile occupying forces—remain the only recognized exclusions. The Court did not adopt the Trump Administration’s narrower interpretation based on parental domicile or immigration status

Implications
Children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders are still U.S. citizens at birth
.
The decision preserves the longstanding legal understanding of birthright citizenship and limits the executive branch’s ability to redefine it unilaterally
.
Federal agencies, including USCIS, continue to apply the 14th Amendment broadly, with only the narrow exceptions recognized by the Court
.
Summary
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Barbara upholds the century-old precedent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, confirming that birthright citizenship applies to nearly all children born on U.S. soil. The decision emphasizes that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is broadly inclusive, with only narrowly defined exceptions, and cannot be overridden by executive action

---

does ai know something we dont??????