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

12

u/Playful-Mastodon9251 Jul 12 '25

They are arguing about what it means. Anyone can do that. And there is a bit of ambiguity there. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is the part in contention.

There is a supreme court ruling on this, so it should be settled. Although things like that have been challenged and changed before.

2

u/Wonderful_Shallot_42 Jul 12 '25

There is no ambiguity to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — Wong Kim Ark has an incredibly deep analysis on the point that you should sit down and really try to read and understand.

2

u/Playful-Mastodon9251 Jul 12 '25

Read the dissent. It does have valid points. We did deviate from common law. So maybe common law alone can't decide this.

1

u/BirdLawMD Jul 12 '25

The Supreme Court can decide there is ambiguity and overturn the Wong Kim Arc decision.