The vehicle for its newfound quasi popularity is the claim by President Trump that he can end birthright citizenship, a principle that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in the United States.
Well, it’s in the 14th Amendment, but applying it to the children of illegal immigrants is an open question, Constitutionally.
In typical Trump fashion, he claims that “Many legal scholars agree” with him that he can end it by executive order. Of course, he never tells us who any of these alleged legal scholars are.
Well, the admittedly small sample size we have of Trump does tell us, contrary to the expectations of many, that he doesn’t issue EO’s without his legal team indicating to him that they believe they can defend it in court; and if they feel that they may prevail (as opposed WILL prevail) he goes ahead and tries it.
This is not new behavior to Trump. Obama took exactly the same tack, which the number of times Obama rule changes were overturned in Court.
This is entirely preposterous.
Not….really. It’s getting to be kind of standard behavior by the Unitary Executive. It may not be a positive development, but they all seem to do it, now.
The principle of judicial review, which Trump also does not seem to understand — see “so called judge” — rests on the entirely logical observation that, in any contest between a statute and the Constitution, the Constitution has to prevail or there is no point in having a constitution.
Nobody’s arguing that; you seem to be missing a step in your logic. Here’s how this is going to go:
- Trump tells the issuing authorities to no longer issue citizenship documentation to children unless one or both parents are US citizens or legal residents.
- Five minutes later, a Court will issue an injunction staying the change until it works its way though the Courts.
- At some point, a Court will decide if the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” applies to any people with their feet on the ground (the current policy) or if a child whose parents are here illegally are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” but that of the nation of their citizenship.
That’s exactly how the process is going to work.
As usual, “conservatives” are desperate to come up with arguments to make Trump’s claim sound reasonable.
Well, it wasn’t too difficult, and didn’t require any “desperation” on my part whatsoever.
Mark Sanford, member of the House of Representatives from South Carolina — the first state to secede — has stated in public that the rights the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees should apply only to former slaves, and presumably to their descendants.
Um, whoops. So much for textualism as the prevailing approach to interpreting the Constitution among “conservatives.”
No, that’s one man’s opinion.
In terms of Scalia’s search for the “original meaning” of the words, there is no good reason to think the meaning of “person” has changed much since 1868.
True; but the matter does not depend on the meaning of “person.”