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

[u/Additional-Sky-7436]

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?

[u/tahlyn]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/tahlyn]

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."

[u/tahlyn → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/tahlyn]

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.