Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(164,041 posts)

6. "Since it is actually in the constitution,and I don't see any ambiguity in the wording,...

Reply to Timewas (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 21, 2025, 04:41 PM

Nov 21

that it would take an ammendment to change that"

There was nothing "ambiguous" about this -

18th Amendment

Amendment XVIII

Section 1.

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.

The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxviii

that lead to this -

21st Amendment

Amendment XXI

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxi

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

3 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Shipwack NotHardly mzmolly

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Weighs Decision on Birthright Citizenship: What To Know [View all] BumRushDaShow Nov 21 OP

6 - 3 Decision yankee87 Nov 21 #1

Wouldn't that affect the orange piggy since his mother was not born in America? kimbutgar Nov 21 #2

No. According to the EO.... reACTIONary Nov 21 #12

Seems to me Timewas Nov 21 #3

"Since it is actually in the constitution,and I don't see any ambiguity in the wording,... BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #6

What I said n/t Timewas Nov 21 #8

I am interpreting what you said BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #9

Trump made money from doing exactly that mgardener Nov 21 #4

Wait, "if neither parent WAS"? Is this fuckhead trying to do this RETROACTIVELY? AZJonnie Nov 21 #5

No. The executive order.... reACTIONary Nov 21 #13

Even so, I'm not sure the SCOTUS can give it a go-ahead without it declaring it applies retroactively AZJonnie Nov 21 #14

There are multiple "practical" problems with this EO.... reACTIONary Nov 21 #20

"meeting in private" PSPS Nov 21 #7

Oh, and maybe include a quote published in 1512, from the Vice-Mayor of West Bumfuckshire, England AZJonnie Nov 21 #15

Well............. the maga 6 might have to look in the mirror and ask if there relatives were immigrants................ turbinetree Nov 21 #10

It's pretty simple. A change like this takes a constitutional amendment just like the second amendment regarding guns. cstanleytech Nov 21 #11

We've seen this game before. Shipwack Nov 21 #16

They did a carve-out for 45 BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #17

Thanks! Forgot about that part. Shipwack Nov 21 #19

Virtually all of us Cirsium Nov 21 #18

What a bunch of asswipes mdbl Nov 22 #21