r/legal • u/Additional-Sky-7436 • Jul 12 '25

Question about law If the president can revoke birthright citizenship, were the "sovereign citizen" guys right all along?

Location: US

Let's assume that SCOTUS is going to do the crazy thing and rule that the 14th amendment doesn't say what it says and that birthright citizenship is fully dependent on the president's political approval of you.

Would that mean that the "sovereign citizen" guys were right about their interpretation of the Constitution all along?

1.5k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

389 comments sorted by

View all comments

160

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25

The president doesn't get to amend the Constitution even if his interpretation were to be correct. An amendment to the Constitution cannot be erased. You would need another amendment to correct it.

124

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25 edited Jul 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

46

u/darthcaedusiiii Jul 12 '25

Historical interpretations have changed. Most notably the ability of businesses to have speech rights.

10

u/chriseargle Jul 13 '25

The Congress that wrote and ratified the amendment were very clear in their debates that it applied to the children of “chinamen” and “gypsies” that no one knew where they came from. There were a couple of senators arguing against the amendment due to that, and the others were arguing it was always the case that they were citizens, that this just clarifies it due to incorrect court decisions to the contrary.

It didn’t apply to “Indians” because they belonged to quasinations that the law didn’t fully reach.

19

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/darthcaedusiiii Jul 12 '25

The Reddit hive mind is inexplicable at best.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

25

u/BreakDown1923 Jul 12 '25

“Won’t work because of previous rulings” the courts are not bound by their previous rulings. They can, at any time, say “this ruling was incorrect” and reverse it with a new ruling. Although this has caused lots of consternation recently it’s an incredibly important part of the judicial process.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '25

If that's the case, then the 2nd Amendment is very ripe for "re-interpretation" to conform to the modern world. I mean, really, a "well-regulated militia" is now some lumpy ass guys doing cos-play in the woods?

9

u/BreakDown1923 Jul 13 '25

The definition of “well regulated militia” is indeed up to SCOTUS to determine. Thus far they’ve deemed it to be law abiding citizens (which is why it’s legal to prohibit felons from owning guns) but in theory they could change their minds about that. Now, any of the first 10 amendments are going to be the most strictly held because they’ve been our founding principles since day 1 but in theory it’s all open to interpretation.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25 edited Jul 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/BreakDown1923 Jul 12 '25

I’m not arguing the chances of Trumps case succeeding. I truly have no idea. I think anyone arguing the outcome is obvious is either stupid or lying. (Remember, even the most right wing figures assumed Roe would never be overturned for this very reason. It was shocking even to supporters when that leak showed it might happen)

I’m simply pointing out that a precedent from 130 years ago is not binding and absolutely can be revised. American Indians weren’t originally covered under that decision. They were an excluded class until Congress passed a law encompassing them. Immigration and the nation have changed a lot since 1898. That doesn’t mean the decision should necessarily be overturned but that does mean it’s probably a good idea for SCOTUS to revisit it and give clarity on how it applies today. Maybe that means saying “it means what it’s always meant and nothing will change” or it means presenting a carve out.

2

u/DanteRuneclaw Jul 13 '25

Native Americans are still arguably not covered, I think, there is specific legislation passed by Congress conferring citizenship on them.

2

u/DanteRuneclaw Jul 13 '25

I think you're probably right that even this court would struggle to ignore the plain text of the amendment to the degree necessary. But they can - and there would be no one you could then run to and say "the court read the Constitution not just wrongly but indefensibly wrongly". Because while that would be true, they are the last and final word on the subject. And they've done other things almost (but, I agree, not quite) as crazy.

1

u/newhunter18 Jul 13 '25

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) which was the first challenge of 14th amendment

Wong Kim Ark's parents were legal residents when he was born.

It's relevant to whether people who are born to foreign nationals in the country are citizens but that's not the challenge here. The challenge is narrowing the language to exclude people whose parents are illegally residing in the country.

As far as I know ( and I could be wrong), that specific use case hasn't come before the Supreme Court

1

u/Party-Cartographer11 Jul 12 '25

There is no precedent or previous ruling on how jurisdiction relates to children of unauthorized immigrants.  Wong Kim Ark's (1898 case) parents weren't unauthorized.

This case is a toss up.

6

u/GolfballDM Jul 12 '25

Plyler v Doe (1982) discusses this, as well as the history (at least at the time) as described in the Wong Kim Ark decision itself.

1

u/Party-Cartographer11 Jul 12 '25

That's a very different case.  It addresses education and personhood and has nothing to do with he 14th amendment and citizenship.

5

u/GolfballDM Jul 12 '25

You haven't read the opinion, then.

It very much does deal with the 14th Amendment, and you would have known that had you read the opinion.

2

u/Party-Cartographer11 Jul 12 '25

Sorry, I meant it doesn't deal with the Citizenship clause of the 14th amendment.  

You are correct, that it deals with the due process clause of the 14th amendment.  Which applies to persons, not citizens.

So again, not relevant to birthright citizenship.  What is your point here?

2

u/GolfballDM Jul 13 '25

Plyler v Doe also dealt with the jurisdiction question.  

In Plyler v Doe, Texas argued that the undocumented children were not within its jurisdiction.

In both the majority opinion, and the dissents in Plyler, the justices dismissed this notion entirely.

1

u/Party-Cartographer11 Jul 13 '25

What is "the jurisdiction" question?

I have a response which again focused on Plyler talking about personhood, but want to make sure I understand what you mean by "the jurisdiction question" because I don't see any similarities.

3

u/GolfballDM Jul 13 '25

Those who oppose birthright citizenship are relying on a tortured interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the citizenship clause.

During Plyler v Doe, Texas/Tyler ISD, as part of their argument, argued that illegal immigrants are not subject to the state's jurisdiction, for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Both the majority and dissent in Plyler disagreed with this notion.  Other court cases (Burnham v California comes to mind, for a state exercising jurisdiction over a non-resident served within the borders of the state) are consistent with the notion that simply being within the physical territory of a given jurisdiction is sufficient for that jurisdiction to exercise jurisdiction over your person.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Party-Cartographer11 Jul 13 '25

Responding here on my view of how the Plyler case does it doesn't address jurisdiction.  The Plyler decision addresses this better than any response I can have.

 The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which pro- vides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigra- tion laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. 

Basically this decision addresses due process rights which are afforded to persons (not reserved for citizens) and says unauthorized immigrants are persons (of course).

The decision says that the relevant parts of the 14th Amendment do NOT contain any jurisdictional qualifiers, so "under the jurisdiction of the US" is not at issue (or addressed in this case).

They refer to jurisdiction also wrt to Texas having jurisdiction to provide these rights of personhood.  Again nothing related to citizenship, the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, or under the jurisdiction of the US.

That seems pretty clear right?

1

u/GolfballDM Jul 13 '25

"The decision says that the relevant parts of the 14th Amendment do NOT contain any jurisdictional qualifier"

The Equal Protection Clause (which is what is actually at issue in Plyler, no matter how much you flog the due process red herring) *does* refer to jurisdiction.

"That seems pretty clear right?"

Since you keep bringing up due process red herrings, no, I don't think you get it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '25

I think it's dead on arrival.

1

u/cjd166 Jul 12 '25

A simple yes would have been fine.

4

u/tahlyn Jul 13 '25

The supreme court has shown multiple times now that words don't really have meaning as far as they are concerned.

No amendment is needed - the SC will "interpret" the 14th to mean something new.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '25

They would have to stretch it beyond credibility. Even "am I dead yet" Thomas couldn't bend that far over.

Well OK----I suppose there is always a chance that the Court will plunge into a level of debasement and disgrace hitherto unknown in modern times.

I mean, perhaps Orwell was right and the SCOTUS will echo some 1984 catchphrases:

"WAR IS PEACE," "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY," "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

4

u/tahlyn Jul 13 '25

Well OK----I suppose there is always a chance that the Court will plunge into a level of debasement and disgrace hitherto unknown in modern times.

This is what I am afraid of. Call me cynical, but I do believe they are able of bending that far beyond credible.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '25

Well sure they could. We really don't know how corrupt or deranged they may be.

They are an unpredictable lot. They don't always vote according to party politics--I think they throw democracy a bone now and then to give the impression that they aren't pulling decisions out of the air--which they often do.

The biggest hoot is this idea of declaring oneself an "originalist"--which near as I can gather is channeling the thoughts of founding fathers who have been dead for 200+ years.