Post

The Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether to uphold the longstanding principle that grants citizenship to the children of non-citizens born in the U.S., following a legal challenge by the Trump administration. n.pr/48E1oko

n.prSupreme Court agrees to hear arguments in birthright citizenship challengeThe Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether to uphold the longstanding principle that grants citizenship to the children of non-citizens born in the U.S., following a legal challenge by the Trump administration.

153 reposts409 likes

Any new novel reading of birthright citizenship will put into jeopardy the citizenship status of EVERYONE born in America after 1868 to undocumented immigrants and in turn, their descendants alive today... It wouldn't only apply to Americans born to undocumented immigrants today.

today.totoday.to 項服務

be ready to bring birth certificates & immigration papers for every single generation from when your family came into the country to prove that you can be an American citizen -cause if you’re only a citizen if your parents came here legally, then you need to prove that all of the came here legally

I get that you don't have federal funding anymore, but recasting the constitution as "y'know, principles" is not gonna get you that sweet sweet appropriations money.

It's so weird how you can decide whether or not to honour the 14th amendment but any mention of touching the 2nd is sacrosanct It's almost like the whole country respects guns more than people

Well over 70% of “the whole country” has been pleading for gun safety reform for decades. We the People are systematically blocked and undermined by the Republican Party and SCOTUS over and over again. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s democracy in action.

The Constitution is barely relevant, since a bare majority of the Supreme Court can effectively void or rewrite any part of the Constitution under the guise of "interpreting" it. We've been living under SCOTUS edicts, not the Constitution, since 1803.

Actually, they need to impeach and remove members of congress who exceeded their authority. They don't have the ability to amend the Constitution - that's already in Article V. They need to be punished for violating what's already in the Constitution.

You are comparing two very different things. There is no vaccines section in the constitution. And there IS an explicit provision requiring birthright citizenship. And saying what you’re saying undermines the rule of law. Is that your aim?

My aim is to point out that I see no logic in the supreme court discussing what is plainly obvious. Likewise there is no logic in a health minister who does not believe in science. Is sarcasm no more allowed?

We as American citizens should not have to worry that the Supreme Court will issue a decision that denies the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution! John Roberts Clarence Thomas Neil Gorsuch Samuel Alito Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett We are watching you

I think we should get ready for the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to take on the same levels of legal fuckery as, “A well regulated Militia”, and, “necessary to the security of a free State”.

The Supreme Court needs to decide whether to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. Birthright citizenship is the legal principle, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, that every baby born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. JFC!

That was meant to protect the children of former slaves and hasn’t been needed in over a century since slavery ended 160 ago. IF the justices rule correctly it will end over a century of abuse. Fingers crossed!!!

wouldn't that just make everybody in the US (besides native Americans) illegal immigrants? this genuinely makes absolutely no fucking sense to me did white people here forget that we didn't come from here?

The very clear meaning of the Constitution is just a “principle”? Come on. It’s not something that’s in doubt just because Trump lies about it. Do better, NPR.

... where "principle" equals "words in the constitution" and "longstanding" equals "since 9 July 1868." Or ... you could have just gone with SCOTUS "will decide whether it will uphold the constitution," which would have been shorter and more to the point.

HOLY SHIT COULD YOU BOTHSIDES HARDER!? It’s not a “Longstanding Principle” it’s the FUTHERMUCKING CONSTITUTION. How dare you beg us for money & pull this shit. You got Defunded. You’re free. You don’t have to do this anymore. I’m unemployed but I swear I’d give more if you’d find a spine.

If the Supreme Court sides with Trump on this one, it will be time for millions of us to descend upon that building and make the justice’s lives a living hell🤬 #Resist #NoKings #Impeach #DeportElon #AbolishICE 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬✊🏼✊🏼✊🏼✊🏼✊🏼

Birthright citizenship and court authority come from the same place: the constitution. If there is no birthright citizenship then the Supreme Court and the executive branch also have no legal control over us bc the contract that grants it had been voided.

Dear NPR: It's not a longstanding principle, it's in the Constitution. It's been decided, decades ago. Put it right. 14th Amendment. Birthright Citizenship.

The Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether to uphold the plain text of the Constitution, following a legal challenge by the utterly lawless, oathbreaking, white supremacist Trump administration. Fixed it for ya.

It's not a principle. It is in the Constitution. The Courts do not have authority to alter that document, neither does the Executive. The words are what they are, they mean what they mean, and there's no way to change that without an amendment.

WTAF NPR? Your headline should read, "The Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether to uphold the citizenship rights contained in the Constitution or to show their loyalty to Trump, once again, whom they annointed king with their past unconstitutional rulings"

@npr.org Why are you referring to a constitutional amendment as “longstanding principle”? It’s literally constitutional law, written in black and white in the 14th amendment, in the very first sentence of the very first paragraph. STOP NORMALIZING THIS INSANITY!!!

Did you really call a constitutional right a "longstanding principle"? These fascists defunded you and you still won't call a spade a spade. Pathetic.

Please read Martin Kaste’s article. (Full disclosure: Kaste is a friend of mine.) You’ll see that the text of the 14th amendment has been subject to legal interpretation, thus the “longstanding principle” description.

Citizenship as an idea must be abolished. It is, as a term, designed to justify the oppression and unjust treatment of a designated "other", a dehumanized underclass of undesirables. ALL of God's children are worthy of a dignified and safe existence, regardless of origin, race, or "legal status".

The Supreme Court will either create a full on Constitutional Crisis and make a mockery of our Constitution if they give Trump and the racists int he Republican party what they want. This reads as if there is a huge question here. There is not.

"Longstanding principle" or black letter law of the Constitution? "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."

Hey @npr.org it’s not a longstanding principle… rewrite this link to represent the actual fact - the US Supreme Court will consider the executive order challenging the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The

*longstanding principles*? You mean the thing explicitly stated in the constitution, right? You'll clarify that point in the headline right? You're going to resist fascism at least a little bit, right?