What the 14th Amendment, Section 1 actually says...

[ProudMNDemocrat]

ALL persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States thereof, ARE Citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge with the privileges.

I cannot fathom the US Supreme Court misunderstanding how this Amendment is worded, let alone striking it down without the normal procedures taking place, such as the Repeal of Prohibition in 1933.(21st Amendment)

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. The trouble would arise from a "you and what army?" Response from Trump

If SCOTUS upholds birthright citizenship, but Trump continues to deport US born children of undocumented parents, who could stop them?

[bucolic_frolic]

2. "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States thereof"

so whiny can try to make an argument that they are citizens, born or naturalized (a process of applying for citizenship and renouncing all foreign allegiances), but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US because ........... _________________.

Fill in the blank. I cannot imagine this holding water either. It would have to be some quality they have such as ..... what? being brown, in debt, criminals? Is that where he's headed? You sure are subject to the jurisdiction of the US if you're been processed through the court system.

The whole argument makes no sense. I vote with the OP.

[Think. Again.]

5. Not "holding water" would mean...

...not surviving a supreme court challenge.

See the problem with that?

[whopis01]

8. It absolutely is the crux of the birthright citizenship argument made by the right.

That is what they point to and claim that somehow people born to foreign citizens in the US are not subject to US jurisdiction. There are a number of arguments used, I believe the most common being that if the child has citizenship in another country due to their parents, then they are subject to that country's jurisdiction and not the US.

[struggle4progress]

10. The standard interpretation has been that the language

"subject to the jurisdiction of the United States thereof"

is intended to exclude diplomats etc

[Think. Again.]

3. This supreme court just makes up their own justifications...

...for whatever the rightwing wants them to do.

They've done it before and I see no reason why they would stop at the 14th amendment.

[Lovie777]

4. I can.....

[unblock]

6. With this court, who knows.

I do think something so overtly contrary to the plain text of the constitution would be a bit much for them. That said, they would try to do what they can get away with.

Legally, these days, depending on the state, you can kill an unwelcome person in your house, or even in the street if you feel momentarily threatened, even if they turn out to be utterly harmless, but you can't do anything if an unwelcome "person" is in your womb, even though the threat of harm is guaranteed and possibly lethal. Never mind even though the "person" is just a few cells and in fact, even if those cells are dead already. We've seen stories of women who can't get an anbortion even when the fetus is already dead. But they can go out and shoot someone wearing a hoodie because it's dark out and they're scared.

So will they say hey, the 14th doesn't apply if you were born here "illegally"? With this court, who knows.

[sop]

7. Back in 2018 Trump said he would end birthright citizenship by executive order.

'Trump suggests he will end birthright citizenship with executive order'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-14th-amendment

It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now.

[allegorical oracle]

9. Don't see how any unilateral moves could do much to alter Article V

From the National Constitution Center (written in 2018):

Changing the actual words of the Constitution does take an amendment, as does actually deleting, or repealing, an amendment. Including the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, which were ratified in 1789, the Senate historian estimates that approximately 11,699 amendment changes have been proposed in Congress through 2016. Only one amendment, the 18th Amendment that established Prohibition, was later repealed by the states.

In recent years, three other amendments have been subject of repeal talk: the 17th Amendment (the direct election of Senators), the 16th Amendment (the federal income tax), and the 22nd Amendment (presidential term limits). None of that talk came close to fruition.

The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-does-it-take-to-repeal-a-constitutional-amendment

[adnoid]

11. It can be done, of course...

The 26th Amendment (Voting age lowered uniformly to 18) took 100 days from proposal to passage in 1971. The majority of the Amendments passed after the Bill of Rights (9 out of 17) took less than a year from proposal to passage.

This would also apply to an amendment to eliminate the Electoral College.

[LexVegas]

12. Of all the crazy shit he will do, I am least worried about this. Much ado about nothing. nt