this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
176 points (98.4% liked)

News

29393 readers
3163 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When the Trump administration asks the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow it to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants and visa holders, its legal theory will rest on a reinterpretation of a critical phrase of the Constitution. But when you plug their preferred meaning back into the historical context in which the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause was enacted, the results are nonsensical. In other words, the crux of the government’s argument simply makes no sense.

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment, passed by Congress a year after the Civil War, is the Citizenship Clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” When President Donald Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his administration that would deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants and visa holders, he premised it on the idea that undocumented immigrants and visa holders are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This is the phrase the government is asking the courts to reinterpret into a fictional absurdity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmynsfw.com 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Honesty has never mattered to conservatives,

Why would anyone expect anything different now?

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't forget conservatives started the Civil War to protect their access to unpaid labour in the form of people treated no better than animals. They may have swapped political parties between 1865 and 2025, but they REALLY want that free labour again!

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It really wasn't originally about ending slavery. It was about the North's right to not return the South's "property" (humans).

[–] Auntievenim@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

And then it became about disposession of all slaves from their owners without compensation, because everyone realized that reforming slavery does nothing but give power to slavers who would just wait 60 years to build the political capital to reverse the reforms and have their medieval torture back.

Sound familiar? It's what we did with robber barons and now we're watching the second half in real time. Revolution is the only solution. In slavery and today, there is no reforming this system to "protect" anyone except the owners. Godspeed to the abolitionist.

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Funny how every state that succeeded listed defending the institution of slavery as a reason for leaving the union and subsequently joining the confederacy.

I think the most accurate statement is the Confederate states left the Union to preserve the institution of slavery. The Union originally only sought to bring back the Confederate states and end the open rebellion. Lincoln was much more interested in restoring the Union than ending slavery, and in the early part of the war would have absolutely allowed slavery to continue if it meant ending the rebellion. Thus, restoring all states to the United States. However, as the war progressed it became clear there would be no easy resolution. Through the Emancipation Proclamation he was able to break the power behind southern production, the slaves, and push forward abolition. A cause he personally was always favorable towards, but unwilling to sacrifice the Union for.