Amendments and laws can be modified by the government as and when it is needed to in order to cater for the current situation is that how it works in the US as well ?

Yes, but the hurdles to amend the US Constitution are impossibly high. You need two-thirds majorities in both chambers of Congress, and then you also need 38 of the 50 states to ratify the amendment. In other words: never gonna happen on any partisan issue.

There's a reason why no politically relevant amendment has been made since 1971...

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 28 2025 09:50am

That's screwed up in a way.

The US political system was not designed with a hyperpolarized 50:50 environment in mind. In such a political environment, the system becomes kinda dysfunctional.

The Germans got it done when the political opposition was revealed to be malicious communists, which resulted in a total collapse of public support. The same thing is presently happening to the wretched & criminal Democratic party. A collapse in public support can also augur the party being convicted and outlawed under the RICO statute (which they *absolutely* should because they're a criminal organization, the only thing stopping this is the public).

The comment of is also false, that is simply an opinion. The SCOTUS determines how written law is interpreted

This post was edited by El1te on Jun 28 2025 10:01am

The process for amending the constitution is intentionally hard. It’s not theoretically impossible (we’ve done it before). But in the current era of hyper polarization it’s effectively impossible.



Not even the government believes their executive order is currently constitutional. Hence why they are fighting on procedural grounds. It’s virtue signaling.

The 14th amendment whether you like its language or not is pretty damn explicit as it pertains to birthright citizenship. It doesn’t take a constitutional law expert to read the 14th amendment and understand what it’s saying.

This post was edited by TeenyUncle8 on Jun 28 2025 10:15am

You're entitled to your opinion, but no one has to give a rat's ass. SCOTUS is, like the name suggests, the supreme authority on these interpretations

You’re right that the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret he laws in a way in which is neither supported by the plain text of the law nor the original intent of the law. Which maybe they do. But it would quite clearly be solely because of their own personal political desires and not really supported by anything else.

Which is nothing more than your (not a judge or justice I assume) personal opinion, which is irrelevant

All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the united states and in the state in which they reside.

Gonna need Samuel Alito to interpret such a deeply complex and incredibly confusing amendment because I don’t know how we’d understand what it’s saying without “interpretation”.