I wonder how many justices will burst out laughing?

I'm thinking only 3 bursting out laughing and maybe 2 more that won't laugh but vote against it. (i hope) This court could be 6-3 decision or even 5-4?

at least TWO for it. and that's a shame. TSF can 100% count on those two

I would have added the word "corrupt"...

I have always been an optimist but, with what has been going on with this administration, the court, I hate that I am becoming a pessimist, I really hate that.

"same status as “the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government”"

Says to me if they were born overseas, they are not US citizens. Nothing remarkable there.

Mr. Wilkins it sounds like the Court argued he was not born in a state, or a territory. He was born with loyalty to his tribe. Splitting hairs. By that logic all immigrants would maintain loyalty to the country from whence they came.

I Congress passed this act, also known as the Snyder Act, granting full U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States, effectively nullifying the requirement for individual naturalization that was central to Elk v. Wilkins.


https://www.opb.org/article/2025/04/07/trump-administration-attempts-to-use-19th-century-native-american-case-to-overturn-birthright-citizenship/]

Trump has that fuck face Miller working on this bullshit only he would pull this out of his rectum

(unless it benefits RW loons), then 45 is gonna roll the dice.

This is black letter constitutional law.

Overturning birthright citizenship would be rewriting the constitution, not just reinterpreting it.

Overturning birthright citizenship would be as historic and significant as Dred or Plessy, or maybe more so, because if birthright citizenship is revoked, can the reinstitution of slavery still be off limits?

That’s why they won’t touch it.

They would be signing the death warrants for their careers- the people would demand the court be expanded to reinstate their rights and overturn all the extremist rulings of the past 20 years.

THAT is the problem we are facing.

No one thought they would "touch" Roe. No one thought they would touch the VRA (even with FOUR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS DEALING WITH VOTING). Next target is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It's all up to those 6 fiends.

BTW, Roe was an “implied” right, not black letter law like birthright citizenship- something that could be solved by 1) codifying reproductive rights in law, and 2) expanding the court to a majority who will uphold it.

Until we elect legislators and a president willing to kill the filibuster and expand the court, neutralizing the MAGA majority so that Dobbs can be reversed, and congress can pass laws codifying Roe nationwide.

and believe it or not, that is primarily what Fetterman ran on - "being the 51st vote" in the Senate to kill the filibuster and codify Roe.

At the time after the 2020 election, the Senate was tied 50 (R)s - 50 (48 (D)s + 2 (I)s) and (D)s forced control of it based on our having the White House (and a VP who would be the tie-breaker to gain control of the Committee Chairs).

In 2022. we got to 51 (49 (D)s + 2(I)s).

But even with that, it didn't happen.

Which ended up saying a whole lot of nothing.

IMO that was the second biggest mistake of his otherwise very progressive administration.

The Snyder Act was a law, not a part of the constitution. So it's not stare decisis. Stare decisis is a doctrine urging the Supreme Court to be cautious in overruling its own prior decisions.

And there is no such thing as black letter constitutional law. Everything in the constitution says is always up to interpretation by the Supreme Court.

And it has been implemented since 1940 as such.

Hence the intent of Congress was to grant US citizenship to all those born in the US. And this was congress's interpretation of "jurisdiction of"

I know that SCOTUS has overturned laws before, but this is a huge one because decades of bureaucracy have been involved with it. So, it wasn't just a Supreme Court decision, it was a law that was passed afterward.

https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I6f209445294e11f18650b90c05b8b24a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

It does not appear that Trump is trying to overturn the law. He's just trying to get them to reinterpret Wong. I don't think he knew about this law.

The constitution always prevails over laws - AND - it is always up to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. There is no such thing as black letter law when it comes to the interpretation of the constitution. If the Supreme Court determines that Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship is correct, any law which contradicts it is unconstitutional.

Do I think it will interpret it as Trump suggests? No. My comments go to your assertions which seem to suggest that you believe the Supreme Court cannot interpret a provision of the constitution in a way which differs from how it has always been applied because it is "black letter law." Or that somehow a law passed by Congress is more controlling than the Constitution, or would prevent the Supreme Court from interpreting the provision in a way that is contrary to Congress' intent.

If the constitution says two term limit for a president, it doesn’t mean three.

Words like “infringe” can be interpreted differently, but numbers, ages, and place of birth cannot.

But for those who argue "liiteralism" vs "wiggle room", they might say (which 45's loons have) that it doesn't say anything about more than 2 "non-consecutive terms" being forbidden, thus making it an implicit option.

The original intent was to avoid what happened with FDR, who was elected for 4 terms (3 full, and the 4th ending up a part term when he died in office). Grover Cleveland was the only other President to serve 2 terms non-consecutively (and he was around before FDR) before 45.

This is the kind of hairs that are being split nowadays.

It says:

SCOTUS will not interpret this to mean 2=3.

The Supreme Court will interpret not just the word two - but all of the surrounding words.

And even just taking the words literally, two can mean more than two.

As I don’t think Trump is going take the issue to court (actually 51 courts) to try and get on the ballot in 2028, and the Republican Party would implode if he did, as dozens are waiting in the wings for their shot.

Give them that authority.

It doesn't give the Supremes the authority to interpret what the US constitution says. They grabbed up that power to make themselves little dictators.

Not everything is derived directly from the Constitution. Judicial review is granted to the judicial branch in the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the (judicial) case that resolved the lingering question of whether that included determining that the legislative branch created a law that violated the Constitution.

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to review the constitutionality of government actions.

No where in the constitution does it give that power to the Supremes. Our founding fathers were well aware of the concept of judicial review. Only some of them wanted to give that power to the Supremes. Note they didn't give it to the Supremes, the Supremes gave it to themselves.

and raise United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Only 14 yr after US v Elk. The justices were intimately aware of what was argued in Elk, and still ruled for Wong Ark. That alone should say quite a bit.

US citizens if it weren't for the fact that his mother was an immigrant and so are/were 2 of the mothers of his children.

This guy was born in a territory. The people Trump is looking to exclude are/would be born in the US.

Or is that what this decision ended up meaning?

But I haven't spent time on how they got from that, to people in Puerto Rico being citizens, to today. The current case seems completely different because the people involved were born in a US state.

Kind of like a nation inside of a nation. That is a whole different set of laws.I don't see how it is a fit.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment 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.”

Obviously, they are trying to get around the word "all", and that includes applying cases that are dubious, at best.

The people referred to NOW are born in one of the States, I guess this guy was born in a territory and NOT a State.

The treatment of Native Americans by the US government (and to be truthful a huge segment of its population) has been forever disgraceful. This appears to be another case of a convenience to get what they want.

The argument "the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government" cannot be used as the tribal lands have always been within the domain of the US government. You cannot have it both ways. One one hand saying their land is sovereign and on the other hand move tribes and/or take whatever land the government wants for whatever reason the government has. Many times at the behest of corporations who want that land for various (many times deceitful/nefarious) reasons.

And legally...
If those fucking, disgusting, treasonous idiots in the White house want to refer back to 1884, they need go no further than to The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Any rationale relying on the 1884 SCOTUS ruling was nullified by that Act.

They may very well be counting on Alito to pull another 400 year-old reference out of his ass to save them. Pardon the exaggeration on the 400 years.

"Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes",[8] determining that Indian tribes were separate from the federal government, the states, and foreign nations."

The various tribes are sovereign nations within the U.S., but the government is required to protect them.

If this tactic is successful, would it mean that we have a non-citizen Secretary of DHS?

I would expect the Secretary to get on this problem right away, and report back his findings.
As soon as he's released from custody - presumably he's also been voting in our elections, so one would expect a trial.

How much longer will this nightmare last?