Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Ms. Toad

(37,488 posts)

12. As others have said, this case was about injunctions, not birthright citizenship.

Reply to Hekate (Original post)

Sat Jun 28, 2025, 06:26 PM

Jun 28

But the Supreme Court doesn't get to overturn constitutional amendments. They interpret them - and the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof "has not yet been interpreted. It has been assumed to have a specific meaning, but the Supreme Court always has the final say as to how the constitution is interpreted. The general question in connection with immigrants present in the United States in accordance with immigration laws has been interpreted. Trump's claim is that if you aren't here in accordance with immigration laws, you are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I think it is a ludicrous claim - but it is a phrase in the amendment which has not yet been interpreted by the courts.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Since when does a potus & scotus get to overturn a Constitutional Amendment? I am confused about the 14th... [View all] Hekate Jun 28 OP

The case was about nation wide injunctions Abnredleg Jun 28 #1

Right -- except nothing "just happens" with this court. They intended for Birthright Citizenship to be... Hekate Jun 28 #9

The court's ruling wasn't about birthright citizenship Fiendish Thingy Jun 28 #2

If lower courts automatically over-ride federal courts, the SCOTUS would be a bull's teat ... marble falls Jun 28 #7

They got away with ignoring 14A Sec 3 on insurrection bucolic_frolic Jun 28 #3

When ? Now, who is going to stop them ? republianmushroom Jun 28 #4

This last decision concerning the 6 assholes was only for "injunctions"............. Lovie777 Jun 28 #5

Yeah Dobbs was merely the first purposeful tred on the constitution Maru Kitteh Jun 28 #6

They haven't ruled on the "central issue". It's all procedural games unblock Jun 28 #8

By definition, the Constitution *can't* be unconstitutional but its provisions are subject to interpretation. Ocelot II Jun 28 #10

It keeps coming up... Hekate Jun 28 #11

As others have said, this case was about injunctions, not birthright citizenship. Ms. Toad Jun 28 #12

The Court knew damn well that edhopper Jun 28 #13

Kind of what I thought... Hekate Jun 28 #14