General Discussion

He says any precedent (past ruling) can be ignored or overturned “just like Dobbs”, but an amendment is not a precedent, it is part of the constitution, and the various past rulings and interpretation of the 14th amendment may have affected individuals’ rights and freedoms as citizens, but there has never been any question of removing/revoking/reclassifying anyone’s citizenship status so that they may be subject to forcible deportation, because that is black letter law in plain English, with not even an unwisely placed comma (as in the 2nd amendment) to create a loophole for reinterpretation.

For all the horrors of Jim Crow, I am unaware of any case seeking to revoke the citizenship of former slaves and deport them back to Africa (although there were racists who made that argument, it was never a case in the courts). Stoermer references the case of the Chinese man, which of course failed and he retained his citizenship.

Stoermer says SCOTUS will just go back to the 19th century and Article III to justify rewriting the 14th amendment; first of all, poppycock.

Secondly, such a ruling would mean that every amendment except for the original Bill of Rights is subject to reinterpretation (Stoermer implies as much); such an interpretation/ruling would open the door for future presidents to ignore all SCOTUS rulings as irrelevant nonsense. With the imperial presidency already established, who’s gonna stop them?

Lastly, Stoermer fails to convincingly describe just how the 14th would be overturned, he essentially says “they are just gonna do it” and mentions the tools they might use.

I wasn’t impressed.