Dude wants to help Musk become president.
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
328 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3972 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Surprise? He's threatened to throw out the constitution because "we don't need it." And he has SCOTUS and Congress to let him do what he wants. Plus he'll have an AG that will basically be his lawyer. Trump is going to do whatever he wants.
Fingers crossed that we have immortalized the constitution so hard that the military would coup him over this. Crazy that's a thing I'm wishing for. Revolution would be cooler but this is America.
New SC Justice Cannon has entered the chat.
We are so seriously fucked.
Shit's fucked
wow, how lucky we are that the ultimate deciders on litigation are not a bunch of partisans hacks, right?
See, logic would dictate that this would be immediately laughed out of court since a change of this magnitude would require a Constitutional Amendment. The 14th amendment does not say it only applies to certain people or under certain circumstances.
Then I remembered what timeline we're in. Trump will have this gleefully rammed through Congress, and the Supreme Court will uphold it based on the long-standing legal principle of "Yeah, but they're brown....."
And this is how Trump invalidates the Constitution. Not by decree. But by spending 4 years sidestepping the Constitution and telling his base that it's just an outdated piece of paper with a bunch of guidelines that can be safely ignored the minute they become inconvenient. Or at least, inconvenient for Republicans.
And he'll do it to thunderous applause.
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.
Easy - declare that kids of illegal immigrants aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then the 14th amendment doesn’t apply!
Of course you’d probably still need legislation to do that, if not an amendment.
I think he wants us to shit ourselves in public about this stuff so he can mock us, but the grandiose gestures he’s throwing around right now are mostly just laughably stupid. I’m still preparing for the shitstorm but I don’t think the big noises he’s making now are telegraphing the real plays.
It’s been a week but feels like people are finally getting it.
There’s no checks and balances left, of all we have to hope is a line written on some paper many years ago, we’re fucked.
There’s no checks and balances left,
There is one left, but we're not allowed to talk about it.
oof, bleak.
The 14th amendment does not say it only applies to certain people or under certain circumstances.
It does have one circumstance:
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.
I'm trying to figure out how they will argue that immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
I've only heard that applied to foreign diplomats. Because the parents have diplomatic immunity, they and their children aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
I think I figured it out... Diplomats are not actually the only persons who can be within American borders without being subject to American law. Another category is "Enemy Combatant".
Remember that Texas has declared immigrants to be invaders.
If they aren't, then border patrol would have no grounds to detain them. ICE could not deport them...
Try this on for size: Trump follows Texas's lead, and declares them to be invaders. Enemy combatants aren't subject to the laws of the nation they are invading.
Trump can argue that Border Patrol is performing a military role, rather than a law enforcement role.
Will there be enough Republicans in the House and Senate to pass laws like that without Democrat support? All they'll have is a simple majority in both.
SCROTUS "reinterpreting" all the laws is the fascists' best bet, I think.
Yes. Simple majority is all that's needed in the House on most if not all matters anyway. And the only thing that would be in the GOP's way would be the filibuster, which they can hand-wave away any time they want with a simple majority vote.
And keep in mind. They can just make up the rules as they go along now. They can literally play Calvinball with the Constitution. If Trump demands it, and the House and Senate vote for it, and the Supreme Court rubber stamps it, and the majority of state governments either go with it or at least don't oppose it.....who's gonna stop them?
If Trump feels like saying that the 14th no longer applies to brown people because fuck you that's why, and Congress votes in favor of a law that says the 14th no longer applies to brown people, and the Supreme Court says "Yep, fuck brown people.", then that's the law of the land regardless of what we think of it, because we individually do not have the power to stop it, and collectively just voted in favor of it.
And keep in mind......there's nothing stopping Trump from replacing "the 14th no longer applies to brown people" with "Women no longer have the right to vote" or "Freedom of the Press does not apply to those critical of the Trump administration". If no branch of government is willing to uphold and enforce the law, the law may as well not exist. The same goes for your rights and protections.
Those Democrats have careers and families they care about. It doesn't take much pressure to own a few of them. Especially without checks and balances and add in some bootlicking appointees to the three letter agencies.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Considering it's how his followers already use their Bible, we can assume they have the same level of "reverence" for the constitution.
To be fair the 14th amendment was really only intended to give freed slaves citizenship. Which is something I'm sure the Supreme Court will cite as part of "original intent" they justify so many rulings with.
"Actually, we find that the 14th amendment really only applies to foreign white people, as the original founding fathers were slave owners who did not view either black or native american people as actual people, and certainly would not have granted them citizenship. Given the original intent of the Founding fathers, not only do we rule that the 14th amendment only applies to foreign white people, but we are simultaneously invalidating the Civil Rights act of 1964, reversing the previous Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education, and striking down the 19th amendment as an unconstitutional violation of the original intent of the Founding Fathers."
-- This supreme court, very possibly.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
My brother in Christ his family were immigrants here at one point, not to mention his wife and her parents..
When they say it's about race, it's about class. When they say it is about class, it's about gender. And when they say it's out gender, it's about race.
Or at least that's how it feels sometimes.
Other races, lower classes and LGBT.
Republican's only need their voters to be two things:
- Hates one of the above.
- Doesn't give a shit about the other two.
So they are incentivised to scatter shot and hurt as many people as possible to get the maximum number of votes... America is fucked.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah but they bought their citizenship, they didn't have it given to them by some stupid thing like the Constitution. Plus, they're the "right kind" of immigrants. Wink wink.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Dipshit whose family were immigrants wants to destroy immigration.
Peak 'pulling the ladder up behind him.'
'Murica zealots who claim to love the Constitution have elected someone who wants to shred it. This is the darkest timeline.
The Constitution gets shredded regularly. It's a failed document.
He wants lawsuits so he can appeal to the Supreme Court and they'll rule in his favor.
So he wants to increase the work done in the central government, therefor increasing spending and therfore taxes?
Edit: /s
No dude, he's going to fire most federal workers. He will replace some of them with sycophants . Read Project 2025
“A mountain of opposition” to the public, maybe, but all the bitching from the ACLU, et al will mean nothing to a Republican majority in Congress.
load more comments
(1 replies)
And how likely is it that a conservative majority SC will stand up to Trump?
load more comments
(3 replies)
This is 100% because they are also going to try and ban abortion. They only want "the right people" being forced into making new US ~~wage slave consumers~~ citizens.
Of all the Supreme Court precedents that are going on the chopping block, I certainly did not expect United States v. Wong Kim Ark on that list.
Genuine question: what happens to someone born in the US to non citizens? If they were born in the states, would they not have the citizenship of their parents country? At that point would they just have no citizenship anywhere?
I'm sure if it came down to it their parents home country might grant their child citizenship, but it probably won't be guaranteed..
I'm not aware of any country where the child would not automatically be eligible for the parents citizenship, even if the child is born abroad.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›