Dan Carlin said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

It appears that this case is going exactly like most Americans thought it would.

---

…but not like most "Americans" think is should.

---

Should? Most? Hardly.

The Constitution is pretty clear to anyone with a brain.

---

True, unfortunately politicians are too spineless to make the change.

---

Politicians can't just "make the change" in our current constitution, much to the chagrin of the wannabe-autocrat we currently have running the show. There is a framework for amending the constitution that is deliberately difficult exactly to protect peoples' rights from temporary eras of populist hysteria.

---

Something tells me you don't apply the same thoughts to "shall not be infringed"

BMX Bandit said:

---

eater of the list said:

---

Would he lose his citizenship?

---

no



try again

---

Why not?

This country is cooked.

We cant pass legislation on things with 80% support.

We're all just arguing about a piece of paper as the titanic sinks, and democrats are drunkenly celebrating their own idiocy as we all slowly die.

Teslag said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

It appears that this case is going exactly like most Americans thought it would.

---

…but not like most "Americans" think is should.

---

Should? Most? Hardly.

The Constitution is pretty clear to anyone with a brain.

---

True, unfortunately politicians are too spineless to make the change.

---

Politicians can't just "make the change" in our current constitution, much to the chagrin of the wannabe-autocrat we currently have running the show. There is a framework for amending the constitution that is deliberately difficult exactly to protect peoples' rights from temporary eras of populist hysteria.

---

Something tells me you don't apply the same thoughts to "shall not be infringed"

---

Something tell me you should be curious and not judgmental.

If you were, you would find that I agree that our constitution as written protects the rights of the having the occasional civilian massacre over what most nations have discovered to be sensible control of firearms. Perhaps in another era Americans will catch up and a critical support to amend the constitution will emerge. Not holding my breath it will happen in my lifetime after what we've shown ourselves capable of the past 10 years.

She proves that Joe Biden, like Obama, strongly preferred to select/surround himself with people dumber than he is/was. And now we might have 3+ decades of hilarious idiocy from that, ahem, person.

Do you really believe that this 👇 was the intent of the 14th? https://t.co/aTnd0bdbtG

— Erich Hartmann (@erichhartmann) April 1, 2026

No one believes that, including ACB and John Roberts, imho. The question is whether this is a precedent setting decision or if they will punt and say congress needs to act. The latter is easier of course but the former is what is needed, as we can't trust congress to do a damn thing ever that is in our interests, way too many rinos and democrats.

Lathspell said:

---

This country is cooked.

We cant pass legislation on things with 80% support.

We're all just arguing about a piece of paper as the titanic sinks, and democrats are drunkenly celebrating their own idiocy as we all slowly die.

---

And these are the words accompanying the drumbeat to authoritarianism. Might as well be Jar-jar binks on the floor of the senate raising a motion to ignore that annoying constitution.

The very idea of the babies birthed by illegals and visitors on US soil getting citizenship is so stupid it is ridiculous it is even a SCOTUS case.

I do believe SCOTUS will rule against the current admin. as they are spineless and too many people (though still a minority % IMHO) would be upset.

There is way too much open interpretation of the Constitution. It is a written document and there is not much leeway for interpretation. But that has not stopped our federal government from doing many things that are unconstitutional but deemed legal as it seems like a good idea or is a supposedly nice thing to do based on feelings and emotions.

eater of the list said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

eater of the list said:

---

Would he lose his citizenship?

---

no



try again

---

Why not?

---

because nothing in the EO takes away anyone's citizenship for starters.

additionally, because his parents were not illegal immigrants, birth tourists or sojourners.

Dan Carlin said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

This country is cooked.

We cant pass legislation on things with 80% support.

We're all just arguing about a piece of paper as the titanic sinks, and democrats are drunkenly celebrating their own idiocy as we all slowly die.

---

And these are the words accompanying the drumbeat to authoritarianism. Might as well be Jar-jar binks on the floor of the senate raising a motion to ignore that annoying constitution.

---

You were *for* covid lockdowns and mandatory vaccine shots i'm guessing.

Dan Carlin said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

This country is cooked.

We cant pass legislation on things with 80% support.

We're all just arguing about a piece of paper as the titanic sinks, and democrats are drunkenly celebrating their own idiocy as we all slowly die.

---

And these are the words accompanying the drumbeat to authoritarianism. Might as well be Jar-jar binks on the floor of the senate raising a motion to ignore that annoying constitution.

---

Or we define what jurisdiction encompasses in regards to the 14th

Dan Carlin said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

It appears that this case is going exactly like most Americans thought it would.

---

…but not like most "Americans" think is should.

---

Should? Most? Hardly.

The Constitution is pretty clear to anyone with a brain.

---

True, unfortunately politicians are too spineless to make the change.

---

Politicians can't just "make the change" in our current constitution, much to the chagrin of the wannabe-autocrat we currently have running the show. There is a framework for amending the constitution that is deliberately difficult exactly to protect peoples' rights from temporary eras of populist hysteria.

---

Something tells me you don't apply the same thoughts to "shall not be infringed"

---

Something tell me you should be curious and not judgmental.

If you were, you would find that I agree that our constitution as written protects the rights of the having the occasional civilian massacre over what most nations have discovered to be sensible control of firearms. Perhaps in another era Americans will catch up and a critical support to amend the constitution will emerge. Not holding my breath it will happen in my lifetime after what we've shown ourselves capable of the past 10 years.

---

That's weird. Because you are strangely absent from gun control threads criticizing blue states for gun control legislation.

Very weird.

Just saw a commercial playing "Born in the USA" by Bruce Fonda Springsteen and saying to protect birthright citizenship.

Paid for by the ACLU.

May be the most unamerican commercial ever produced.

BMX Bandit said:

---

eater of the list said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

eater of the list said:

---

Would he lose his citizenship?

---

no



try again

---

Why not?

---

because nothing in the EO takes away anyone's citizenship for starters.

additionally, because his parents were not illegal immigrants, birth tourists or sojourners.

---

His parents where not US citizens, he is by definition an anchor baby.

eater of the list said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

eater of the list said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

eater of the list said:

---

Would he lose his citizenship?

---

no



try again

---

Why not?

---

because nothing in the EO takes away anyone's citizenship for starters.

additionally, because his parents were not illegal immigrants, birth tourists or sojourners.

---

His parents where not US citizens, he is by definition an anchor baby.

---

Even if they strike down birthright citizenship for illegals, it would not be retroactive.

Also, legal immigrants who are here and working to become citizens, their children would still be citizens when born.

If you are a legal resident, you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof and the baby would be a US citizen.

The EO is to address temporary visitors and those here illegally.

eater of the list said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

eater of the list said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

eater of the list said:

---

Would he lose his citizenship?

---

no



try again

---

Why not?

---

because nothing in the EO takes away anyone's citizenship for starters.

additionally, because his parents were not illegal immigrants, birth tourists or sojourners.

---

His parents where not US citizens, he is by definition an anchor baby.

---

try paying attention to whats going on here and come back after you have a clue.

on my post yesterday about striking this down on a statutory basis, going back through the transcript, I think there is a chance that there is possibility that Trump loses the case, but wins in that there is now a clear path to change the law by legislation rather than amendment.. here is what the EO applies to:

(1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.


barrett was asking the ACLU lawyer whether congress can add new carveouts (like ambassadors, etc.). ACLU lawyer said "no" but its clear barrett disagreed with her. kavanaugh asked about why congress in later years kept using the same definition, so he seems to think this is also possible.

so do we end up with an opinion that the EO was not the proper mechanism to do this, but essentially saying congress can do this?


yeah, yeah, congress doesn't pass anything I get it. but questions of what they have the power to do versus will do are very different.

Teslag said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

It appears that this case is going exactly like most Americans thought it would.

---

…but not like most "Americans" think is should.

---

Should? Most? Hardly.

The Constitution is pretty clear to anyone with a brain.

---

True, unfortunately politicians are too spineless to make the change.

---

Politicians can't just "make the change" in our current constitution, much to the chagrin of the wannabe-autocrat we currently have running the show. There is a framework for amending the constitution that is deliberately difficult exactly to protect peoples' rights from temporary eras of populist hysteria.

---

Something tells me you don't apply the same thoughts to "shall not be infringed"

---

Something tell me you should be curious and not judgmental.

If you were, you would find that I agree that our constitution as written protects the rights of the having the occasional civilian massacre over what most nations have discovered to be sensible control of firearms. Perhaps in another era Americans will catch up and a critical support to amend the constitution will emerge. Not holding my breath it will happen in my lifetime after what we've shown ourselves capable of the past 10 years.

---

That's weird. Because you are strangely absent from gun control threads criticizing blue states for gun control legislation.

Very weird.

---

Weird that you need my companionship so much on message board threads. Very weird!

Appreciate that breakdown. I'm not watching the details of it, but I assumed this would be the type of ruling we would get.

Congress is worthless today, but I could see a new faction getting elected on the sheer basis of this issue. Kinda like a Tea Party movement.

Interesting thought...

Based on SCOTUS today, Trump should drop some new EOs tomorrow....

1) Designate Birth-Tourism Facilitators as Foreign Exploitation Networks Under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

2) Every hospital must report within 2 hours (via the new ICE portal) any birth where the…

— Morgan Warstler (@morganwarstler) April 2, 2026

Quote:

---

Based on SCOTUS today, Trump should drop some new EOs tomorrow....

1) Designate Birth-Tourism Facilitators as Foreign Exploitation Networks Under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

2) Every hospital must report within 2 hours (via the new ICE portal) any birth where the mother is non-LPR/temporary/illegal. A public Birth Tourism Dashboard on http://DHS.gov listing aggregated numbers by country.

3) Directs SSA, State, and DHS to presume that any child born to a mother who is either unlawfully present or on a temporary non-immigrant visa (B-1/B-2, student, tourist, etc.) lacks parental domicile and therefore is not "subject to the jurisdiction" under the 1868 original meaning.
Parents get 90 days to rebut with sworn evidence of permanent domicile + intent to remain (green-card application in process, U.S. home ownership, etc.). Failure = "provisional non-citizen" notation on birth certificate, SSN starting with "9," and no automatic passport.
$50,000 civil penalty per unrebutted birth on hospitals that don't flag the presumption in real time.

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

on my post yesterday about striking this down on a statutory basis, going back through the transcript, I think there is a chance that there is possibility that Trump loses the case, but wins in that there is now a clear path to change the law by legislation rather than amendment.. here is what the EO applies to:

(1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.


barrett was asking the ACLU lawyer whether congress can add new carveouts (like ambassadors, etc.). ACLU lawyer said "no" but its clear barrett disagreed with her. kavanaugh asked about why congress in later years kept using the same definition, so he seems to think this is also possible.

so do we end up with an opinion that the EO was not the proper mechanism to do this, but essentially saying congress can do this?


yeah, yeah, congress doesn't pass anything I get it. but questions of what they have the power to do versus will do are very different.

---

Thanks for posting this. I don't mean to be the guy that walks into the movie halfway through but do you think points 1 & 2 in your summary get passed? If so, that's huge. Something has to be done.

The first question asked of her is from Justice Thomas. He asks what unites her admitted exceptions to birthright citizenship. Her answer to Justice Thomas's question could have been delivered by SG Sauer! The "interaction" between sovereigns is the whole ball game. pic.twitter.com/eawwbcxWSL

— Eric W. (@EWess92) April 2, 2026

All the Court watchers explain that President Trump is likely going to lose. I'm not going to disagree. But listening to the argument I'm a lot less sure about how or why than others seem to be. Sauer was excellent.

Read the transcript here: https://t.co/HEImTHoSET

— Eric W. (@EWess92) April 2, 2026

dreyOO said:

---

Appreciate that breakdown. I'm not watching the details of it, but I assumed this would be the type of ruling we would get.

Congress is worthless today, but I could see a new faction getting elected on the sheer basis of this issue. Kinda like a Tea Party movement.

---

I would welcome it.

The left wants this country to belong to the world, yet not have any responsibility to the world (except give them money).

And we all sit idly by paying our taxes like the good little sheep we are and watching those taxes go to foreigners, illegal immigrants, and "citizens" of this country that hold no allegiance to what this country stands for (ok...stood for).

If the AI predictions come true and unemployment continues to pick up...watch out. Combined with our astronomical debt that most leftists are clueless about this country is a ticking time bomb about to blow up the world economy within the next 5 years. When the gravy train ends we won't recover from that without a new/amended constitution. And we won't get that until either the left or right is forced to capitulate.

The left has never learned the lesson that in order to help someone else, you have to help yourself first. While many Americans today are well off, our country is not. It is rotting at the core and they don't even see it coming.

Seems likely that Justice Roberts court will cobble a middle of the road approach.

a) invalidate Trumps executive order.
b) declare that the US constitution doesn't inherently disallow laws that can limit the ways in which chain migration can be limited in the case of illegal immigrants.
c) leaves it to congress to decide how to further limit chain migration in future years.

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. If it no longer serves the American people then we need to replace it.

Quote:

---

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. If it no longer serves the American people then we need to replace it.

---

There are plenty of mechanisms embedded in the Constitution that allow it to adapt with the times.

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. If it no longer serves the American people then we need to replace it.

---

Rather than replace it, I'd rather peacefully secede from the portion of the US that wants to *******ize the verbiage and intent of the document at the time of signing. No new Constitution as going be be able to make water and oil mix long term.

The document is good as is, though could be clearer in some areas to further idiot proof it.
But the bigger issue is how many people in the US that are either: anti-American, useful idiots for the anti-Americans, or apathetic.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. If it no longer serves the American people then we need to replace it.

---

There are plenty of mechanisms embedded in the Constitution that allow it to adapt with the times.

---

Well it hasn't been feasible to amend the constitution for a long time and will not happen again in our lifetime. Our 2-party system made sure of that. Our 2-party system has also made Congress impotent and unable to make any demonstrable change other than give out more money.

And now after many years of increased immigration we are even further divided than ever, even more so than simply being a left or right problem. We are now a pot of people from around the world that has not melted together and cannot agree on anything of significance. The time for action was over 50 years ago. Its now too late to do anything about it except watch what remains wither on the vine as everyone tries to get the most they can out of it before the collapse.

Dan Carlin said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

It appears that this case is going exactly like most Americans thought it would.

---

…but not like most "Americans" think is should.

---

Should? Most? Hardly.

The Constitution is pretty clear to anyone with a brain.

---

True, unfortunately politicians are too spineless to make the change.

---

Politicians can't just "make the change" in our current constitution, much to the chagrin of the wannabe-autocrat we currently have running the show. There is a framework for amending the constitution that is deliberately difficult exactly to protect peoples' rights from temporary eras of populist hysteria.

---

Something tells me you don't apply the same thoughts to "shall not be infringed"

---

Something tell me you should be curious and not judgmental.

If you were, you would find that I agree that our constitution as written protects the rights of the having the occasional civilian massacre over what most nations have discovered to be sensible control of firearms. Perhaps in another era Americans will catch up and a critical support to amend the constitution will emerge. Not holding my breath it will happen in my lifetime after what we've shown ourselves capable of the past 10 years.

---

That's weird. Because you are strangely absent from gun control threads criticizing blue states for gun control legislation.

Very weird.

---

Weird that you need my companionship so much on message board threads. Very weird!

---

Just exposing your blatant double standard. You don't care about attempts to subvert the constitution at all, or else you'd jump on those threads with the same tenacity as you are doing here.

WestAustinAg said:

---

Seems likely that Justice Roberts court will cobble a middle of the road approach.

a) invalidate Trumps executive order.
b) declare that the US constitution doesn't inherently disallow laws that can limit the ways in which chain migration can be limited in the case of illegal immigrants.
c) leaves it to congress to decide how to further limit chain migration in future years.

---

So if they leave the question open can states stop issuing birth certificates to the children of illegals?

Teslag said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

Seems likely that Justice Roberts court will cobble a middle of the road approach.

a) invalidate Trumps executive order.
b) declare that the US constitution doesn't inherently disallow laws that can limit the ways in which chain migration can be limited in the case of illegal immigrants.
c) leaves it to congress to decide how to further limit chain migration in future years.

---

So if they leave the question open can states stop issuing birth certificates to the children of illegals?

---

Don't need to stop issuing them, but create an alternate "Certificate of Birth for Non-Citizen"; if later on, your parents get a green-card, you go back and get a revised standard birth certificate.

Quote:

---

Don't need to stop issuing them, but create an alternate "Certificate of Birth for Non-Citizen"; if later on, your parents get a green-card, you go back and get a revised standard birth certificate.

---

Do any countries require that their citizens be born in their country?

If they do, where does the child with the "Certificate of Birth for Non-Citizen" belong.?

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. If it no longer serves the American people then we need to replace it.

---

The thought of replacing it with something written by today's politicians and in today's social climate is absolutely horrifying.

So no, replacing it is not an option.