Trump Attempts To Rewrite Fourteenth Amendment
Well, that didn't take long. Hours after swearing an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, President Donald Trump issued an executive order which attempted to rewrite one part of that same Constitution. He did so unilaterally, without any action by Congress. Of course, neither Congress nor a U.S. president is actually capable of changing the Constitution's text on their own -- that would require a constitutional amendment ratified by three-fourths of the states' legislatures. But that pesky detail didn't stop Trump from trying.
Trump's order would (if upheld by the courts, which is highly doubtful) end "birthright citizenship" by putting new restrictions on who would be considered an American citizen at birth. This would essentially ignore (or radically change the meaning of, at the very least) part of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the text of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, in full:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The first thing to note is how the words "persons" and "citizens" are used. The Constitution differentiates between the two in various areas. "Citizens" are United States citizens. "Persons" are anyone who happens to be in the United States, no matter what their citizenship status is. So the meaning is clear: anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen.
In fact, citizenship doesn't even depend on being born within the country. A baby becomes a United States citizen at birth if its parents are U.S. citizens no matter where it is born. Children born outside of America are also "natural born citizens" (the test used for who is eligible to run for president). We've had two such persons run in recent decades, in fact: John McCain (who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, a U.S. territory at the time), and Ted Cruz (who was born in Canada). McCain's parents were both natural-born American citizens. Cruz had a mother who was a natural-born American citizen, but his father was born in Cuba and didn't become an American citizen until decades after Ted was born. And contrary to the misguided beliefs of the "birthers," Barack Obama could have been born anywhere on Earth and he still would have been able to run for president as a natural-born citizen (since, just like Cruz, his mother was a natural-born U.S. citizen).
These examples are all children born to United States citizens. What Trump is attempting to do is to remove automatic citizenship from babies born on U.S. soil to parents who are not U.S. citizens. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was written to guarantee that ex-slaves could not be denied American citizenship, but the wording of the amendment does not limit it to such a use -- it is a sweeping pronouncement that anyone born in America is automatically an American citizen, period.
However, some Republicans have wanted to get rid of this for years. They have constructed a legal rationale for their position which is pretty weak, but here's how it goes: the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes persons who are not already U.S. citizens. This is patent nonsense, of course. Any person in any American state is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," otherwise non-citizens who happen to be in the United States would be able to commit crimes with impunity. That's what "jurisdiction" means -- you are subject to the laws of the state and country you happen to be in.
There has only been one truly valid exception to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that is for children born to diplomats with diplomatic immunity. After all, they are the only persons within this country who are expressly not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A diplomat can commit any crime he or she likes, and if the cops try to arrest them, all they have to do is pull out their diplomatic passport and they walk away scot-free. Nobody else within the borders of the country has such immunity, however. Everyone else is equally responsible for following all the laws, whether they are citizens or not.
This is how the courts have interpreted the amendment for over a century. Trump's executive order attempts to redefine this interpretation, since it is designed so that "his administration will no longer recognize automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to immigrant parents who are in the country without authorization, provided neither parent is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident." The order "also bars automatic citizenship for children born to noncitizen parents who are in the country on temporary work, student or tourist visas."
Almost immediately after this order was issued, over a dozen states filed a lawsuit challenging this interpretation in federal court. They will probably get a judicial stay which will bar the Trump administration from following through on the order until the courts decide the constitutionality of it. Following a century's worth of precedent, the courts will almost certainly eventually rule that the order is unconstitutional and thus null and void. At least the lower court and the appellate court can be counted on to do so, but with the Trumpified Supreme Court, it's really anyone's guess what the final ruling will be. They have shown they don't care one whit about overturning long-standing precedent, and they have also shown that they are open to pretzel logic when it comes to legal reasoning. What should be a 9-0 unanimous decision striking the order down is really anyone's guess (sad to say).
The Fourteenth Amendment says what it says. It doesn't require a law degree to read it and fully understand what it means. American citizenship is the birthright of any baby born on American soil, with the sole exception being foreign diplomats' children. That's how it has been since the Civil War. If Trump wants to change that, it's going to require a lot more than just his signature on a document. It would require a new constitutional amendment with the new definition of who is considered a citizen at birth fully spelled out. Three-fourths of the states would have to ratify it before it became law. Doing so would be fully living up to the oath of office Donald Trump just took, even if he would prefer to have the power to just rewrite constitutional sections he didn't agree with. In fact, the states and organizations who are now suing him to stop his executive order are truly the ones fighting to preserve and protect the United States Constitution, not Donald Trump.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
And the leopards feasted on face...
this strikes me as an instance of "flooding the zone" so that other rogue executive actions, equally reprehensible but less absurd, skate by with significantly less attention paid.
Trump has also used the pardon power granted to the POTUS in the Constitution in a manner for which it was not intended, to absolve violent criminals who violated multiple laws for the benefit of himself in order to remain in power. The pardon power in the Constitution is based on the British "prerogative of mercy" and meant to allow correction for punishment deemed severe, unwarranted... not meant to absolve violent criminals attacking law enforcement officers with the goal of stopping the Congress of the United States from performing their constitutionally mandated duties.
As for the birthright citizenship issue, the Constitution definitely does not bestow upon the POTUS the authority to unilaterally change or amend the provisions therein. Presidents are bound by the Constitution, not the other way around. The executive orders of the POTUS are designed to implement and enforce existing law and most definitely not to create new laws or invalidate the laws contained in the Constitution referred to as constitutional rights.
Not rocket science.
There has only been one truly valid exception to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that is for children born to diplomats with diplomatic immunity.
There is also an exception for children born on United States soil to those considered enemy combatants.
The 14th Amendment, in another section, prohibits federal office for those who have attempted insurrection against the constitutional government. Like Trump did on Jan. 6, 2021. But the Supreme Court said no, that didn't count, so he can still run for, be elected, and take office as president.
Given this Supreme Court's inability to interpret the 14th Amendment's plain meaning in that regard, who here is prepared to argue that surely -- surely! It's so obvious! A layman can read the text and get it! -- surely they will honor the obvious intent and meaning of this birthright citizenship section of the 14th Amendment?
I wouldn't bet on it.
Of course, neither Congress nor a U.S. president is actually capable of changing the Constitution's text on their own -- that would require a constitutional amendment ratified by three-fourths of the states' legislatures. But that pesky detail didn't stop Trump from trying.
You mean, like Basement Biden adding the "28th Amendment" saying that the ERA is an amendment of the US Constitution...???
You mean like that??
Funny how you didn't condemn THAT act...
:eyeroll:
@kick,
the MAGA-verse has already called the influx of undocumented immigrants an "invasion," so how far is it from there to labeling migrant workers "enemy combatants?" is that where you were going with that?
JL
@ JMCT
The 14th Amendment, in another section, prohibits federal office for those who have attempted insurrection against the constitutional government. Like Trump did on Jan. 6, 2021.
Except that never happened.. Except in the fevered minds of those who suffer from PTSD and Trump/America hatred..
If this happened, as you LAUGHABLY claim, why wasn't PRESIDENT charged with this crime??
Because ANYONE with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows that the accusation is, on the face and throughout, complete and utter BS...
If you want to claim that PRESIDENT Trump is responsible for 6 Jan, then you MUST accept the FACT that Democrats are responsible for 22+ years (collectively) of Democrat BLM and AntiFa riots and attacks on hundreds of government buildings all over the country..
Are you willing to concede that, JMCT??
Of course yer not.. Which makes you a complete and utter hypocrite...
:eyeroll:
JL,
The issue is not migrant workers and you damn well know that..
The issue is ILLEGAL migrant workers..
NO ONE has ANY problem with those migrant workers who follow the rules...
It's the CRIMINALS that need to be prevented from crossing our border and, for the ones who are already here, deported with extreme prejudice..
"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
-Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN
Any person in any American state is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," otherwise non-citizens who happen to be in the United States would be able to commit crimes with impunity.
Which is EXACTLY what is happening in the here and now...
Just as Laken Riley's friends and family.. :eyeroll:
So, apparently, the FACTS support PRESIDENT Trump's interpretation of the relevant section..
"Thank you for your co-operation..."
-Black Widow, THE AVENGERS
In light of the irresponsible and unhinged comments of
@AOC @RepJayapal @RepJerryNadler
and others concerning the bill to keep males out of girls'/women's sports, and the 206 Democratic votes against the bill, I have, after decades as a Democrat, registered as an Independent.
-Life Long Democrat Professor Gary Francione
And Democrats wonder why they lost the Election *AND* the Popular Vote to PRESIDENT Trump..
:eyeroll:
Trump orders all federal diversity, equity and inclusion employees placed on paid leave starting Wednesday
The Trump administration also directed government agencies to draw up plans for firing workers in DEI roles.
The Trump administration is ordering all federal employees in diversity, equity and inclusion roles placed on paid leave by Wednesday evening, according to a new memo from the Office of Personnel Management.
The memo, issued Tuesday to heads of departments and agencies, sets a deadline of no later than 5 p.m. ET Wednesday to inform the employees that they will be put on paid administrative leave as the agencies prepare to close all DEI-related offices and programs and to remove all websites and social media accounts for such offices.
It also asks federal agencies to submit a written plan by Jan. 31 for dismissing the employees.
DEI is dead...
And it couldn't have come at a better time.. :D
Politico editor-in-chief calls Trump ‘greatest American figure of his era’ due to his influence
John Harris said Trump's political opponents should face the fact that Trump is not a 'momentary anomaly'
Politico global editor-in-chief John F. Harris argued in a new piece that President Donald Trump’s second victory proves that he has dominated American politics so thoroughly that he will likely be counted among the country’s most consequential leaders.
Looks like former Democrat Water Carriers are jumping on the MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN/PRESIDENT TRUMP train!! :D
Democrats have completely lost any and all relevance in America in the here and now...
"Ain't it kewl!?"
-John Travolta, BROKEN ARROW
:D
"Trump’s second inauguration on Monday puts the president in an entirely new light. PRESIDENT Trump is now holding power under circumstances in which reasonable people cannot deny a basic fact. He is the greatest American figure of his era."
-John F. Harris, Politico Editor In Chief
Everyone is jumping on the President Trump train... :D
Don't get left behind... :D
His and Her memecoins? Let the grift begin. Those flocks won't fleece themselves, and he does need an avenue for bribes. This is going to be the most corrupt administration in this countries history.
I see he already raised drug prices but pardoned Ross Ulbricht so maybe that will balance out on the illicit market...
The drugged out Nazi dork shadow President undercuts Trump's AI announcement.
Just like his renaming the Gulf of Mexico, all empty gestures without the money to back it up. Let's see the money to get new educational materials, maps books, globes, et for the schools. No? The Gulf of Mexico it is...
@bashi,
our country's institutions have been for sale to the highest bidder since 1980. citizens united made it official. so at this point why not be up-front about it?
@m,
it wasn't you who i asked, but since you chimed in, do you believe that undocumented migrant workers should be declared "enemy combatants" for the purpose of invalidating the birthright citizenship of their children?
JL
nypoet22
7
the MAGA-verse has already called the influx of undocumented immigrants an "invasion," so how far is it from there to labeling migrant workers "enemy combatants?" is that where you were going with that?
No, sir. I was simply pointing out there is factually another valid exception to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Enemy combatants" actually applies to foreign soldiers and not to people seeking employment and/or amnesty.
I personally think it's batshit crazy (ignorant) to make the asinine claim that so-called "illegal aliens" aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States while simultaneously claiming they're criminals by virtue of being in the country, whether entering legally and then becoming illegal by virtue of "staying" in violation of US law or entering illegally at the outset in violation of US law. If you're a so-called "legal alien" in this country, you are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, and if you're here illegally, you are equally subject to those laws.
To be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States simply means you are subject to the authority of the United States. So obviously, that phrase covers the vast majority of persons within our borders no matter how they got here. With only a few exceptions, a person's current immigration status, national allegiance, or past compliance with immigration laws obviously does not determine whether or not they are required to obey the laws of the United States... everyone must obey.
The Citizenship Clause guarantees in plain language birthright citizenship to the United States-born children of all persons subject to United States sovereign authority and laws. The requirement of jurisdiction excludes persons who are immune and therefore not required to obey the laws of the United States: Foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers (agents of another foreign nation) not subject to the laws of the United States despite their presence within the territory of the United States. Foreign diplomats have "diplomatic immunity," while lawful enemy combatants have "combatant immunity," and children born to them within the territory of the United States are therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship.
Illegal so-called "aliens" are literally illegal because they are subject to U.S. law... not because they're not.
Not rocket science.
Great question. :)
Kick, on [19]
Thanks for that very clear exposition.
The enemy soldier thing pre-supposes the presence of an army of another country in some territory of the U.S.A., i.e. an ongoing military invasion. Rare example: British troops invaded and occupied parts of Maryland in the War of 1812.
Such soldiers are clearly not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. and its laws - they work for the other country and are subject to its laws, military and civil.
As you say, one can call a wave of illegal immigrants an "invasion" to get votes, etc. Swell - good old political BS or lies.
But it's not a military invasion under the command of the Mexican (or any other) government, with the immigrants following only the orders of their Mexican commanders in the field. Only in that case - which isn't happening, has never happened, and never will happen - would any children born to (female?) uniformed soldiers on foreign-occupied U.S. soil not be entitled to U.S. citizenship.
John M from Ct.
20
But it's not a military invasion under the command of the Mexican (or any other) government, with the immigrants following only the orders of their Mexican commanders in the field.
Yes, sir. Legal immigrants and illegal immigrants aren't enemy soldiers by any stretch of the imagination; although, I would not be surprised in the least if President Pussy Neck hysterically attempted to claim they are. What would make that laughable on its face would be the fact that Donald Trump himself has been historically and still is quite a prolific employer of immigrants (legal as well as illegal), numbering thousands with the H2B visas he requests climbing ever higher on a yearly basis, as anyone can verify via the United States Department of Labor.
If Trump is prepared to admit he hired foreign enemy combatants to build Trump Tower (which he famously tried to screw them out of their agreed wages because they were illegal) and multiple of his golf courses and has recently hired foreign enemy combatants (both legally and illegally) in his wineries and multiple other of his properties, then he should try that and see how it works out for him.
As per usual with Trump, he's part of the problem who hires and exploits cheap labor while also blaming said cheap labor for all manner of evils. As Bashi rightly pointed out above, Trump pardoned Ross Ulbricht of illicit drug fame. Ulbricht was convicted of seven counts related to his operation of the website Silk Road, which facilitated the sale of illegal drugs using Bitcoin, including the distribution of narcotics. Ulbricht was convicted for his using his website to facilitate more than 1.5 million transactions worth approximately $213 million, including more than $183 million in illegal drug sales. I could go on about the Trumpian blaming of immigrants for all manner of ills in America and the Orwellian doublespeak, but I'd digress.
Suffice it to say, if the United States (all political Parties) wanted to seriously do something about illegal immigration that they claim takes the jobs of Americans and lowers wages of Americans, they'd prosecute the perpetrators of fraud running the companies hiring them illegally... but they prosecute very few. If employers would cease hiring illegal immigrants or face serious prosecution for doing it, how many people would cross the border for a job that didn't exist?
Only in that case - which isn't happening, has never happened, and never will happen - would any children born to (female?) uniformed soldiers on foreign-occupied U.S. soil not be entitled to U.S. citizenship.
I am definitely not prepared to make the claim "never will happen," but we have Guantanamo and similar places not on U.S. soil for such and similar situations, but that opens a whole other can of worms. :)