Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order

#51

Post by HaZeust » Sun, Jun 29, 2025, 8:07 PM UTC

bdangubic wrote: post #48

HaZeust wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, nonsense. Cheers

name one thing that is part of “american culture” (other than bringing military to football games which only countries like north korea do), I’ll wait… :)

I also implore you to research everything on that list and its origin or credit for widespread use, starting with the one you critiqued:

"The ice cream float was invented by Robert M. Green in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1874 during the Franklin Institute's semicentennial celebration. The traditional story is that, on a particularly hot day, Green ran out of ice for the flavored drinks he was selling and instead used vanilla ice cream from a neighboring vendor, inventing a new drink.[3]"

Best of luck to you!

Re: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order

#52

Post by HaZeust » Sun, Jun 29, 2025, 8:18 PM UTC

throwaway48476 wrote: post #46

HaZeust wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"National identity isn't some cloak that you just hand out. Magic dirt isn't real" Goes the same between both ways. Nation Identity. Thanks for your replies.

You say they are Indians or Soviets, not Americans.

I proudly say I'm American almost everyday; as do tens of millions. Talk to more people, the knowledge and experience you obtain will surprise you.

Re: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order

#53

Post by boroboro4 » Mon, Jun 30, 2025, 6:13 PM UTC

Ancapistani wrote: post #18

josefritzishere wrote: post #14

Executive Orders do not overrule the Constitution. That would mean there is no law. No law at all. It would make every president a dictator; whose word is law. Something which is unthinkable and incompatible with democracy.

This EO is not even attempting to overrule the Constitution. The 14th Amendment includes the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Is a child born to a foreign national who is present in the US without legal authorization subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Historically, we’ve said “yes”. This EO instructs the executive branch to adopt the position of “no”. This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BA…

First of all this particular ruling has nothing to do with merits of the case. It's very unlikely they will rule in favor of EO in the end, which is while possible (with this court everything is possible) still is highly unlikely.

> This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BATFE changing the way it interprets an longstanding statute

Here we're talking about constitution amendment. While the court does reinterpret constitution from time to time it's not something they do very frequently. Especially if you talk about more than a century precedent. Especially if the original meaning was quite straightforward: obviously a foreign national who is present in the US without legal authorization is subject to the jurisdiction of the US, I haven't seen illegals running around killing people and police choosing to ignore them because, hm, they aren't subject to US jurisdiction.