this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
260 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19899 readers
3435 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, blocked Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, calling it “clearly unconstitutional.”

In his ruling, he strongly defended the rule of law, stating, “It has become ever more apparent that to our president the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals.”

His preliminary injunction prevents the executive order’s enforcement ahead of its February 18th start date.

The judge remarked that only a formal constitutional amendment can change birthright citizenship, underscoring legal limits on presidential power.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 37 points 19 hours ago

back then nominations tended to be more moderate to begin with, as the threshold to get through the senate was higher than the simple majority today.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 17 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Watch the Trump-leaning congress amend the constitution.

[–] otto@sh.itjust.works 72 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (4 children)

Constitutional amendment requires both a super majority in the Senate and 75% ratification by the states.

Not gonna happen

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

They’re not going to play by the rules. I guarantee it.

[–] GluWu@lemm.ee 18 points 13 hours ago

Everyday for the last month:

[–] mpa92643@lemmy.world 41 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

Absolutely. They can't amend the Constitution through ordinary means. Which is why they've installed a bunch of extreme right-wing Supreme Court justices who can interpret the Constitution however they want to benefit right-wing extremists.

Here's a completely plausible scenario: Donald Trump orders ICE to deport any child born here to non-citizen parents in complete defiance of the court order. The district court judge gets really annoyed and issues criminal contempt rulings against the head of DHS and ICE for disobeying an order of the court. Trump orders DHS and ICE to ignore the court and promises pardons to anyone facing criminal contempt charges.

Because the SCOTUS has ruled "core powers" are "absolutely immune" and the pardon is an explicit power granted to the president with no limitations, he can use the pardon power literally however he wants, including as part of a criminal conspiracy to break the law.

And bam, full blown constitutional crisis because the SCOTUS basically neutered the entire judicial branch and gave the president dictatorial powers.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Court: Contempt

Trump: Pardoned!

Court: Contempt!

Trump: Pardoned

Court : Contempt

Police: arrests DHS head.

Trump : Pardoned!

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 hours ago

Oh wow. That's bad. Basically let people break the law and just keep pardoning them as they go along.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 2 points 17 hours ago (2 children)
[–] otto@sh.itjust.works 6 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

In the US House of Representatives and in the United States Senate, a super majority constitutes 66% or 2/3 or more of the vote.

This term also applies to such a majority in state legislatures.

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

A regular majority is (for example) 51 to 49. A super majority is a higher threshold (e.g., 60 to 40).

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 hours ago

Ah OK. Thanks

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 points 17 hours ago

This post is 3 hours old. It may be done already.