On this holiday weekend, stop and think for a moment about the direction our country is heading.
If the Constitution says one thing, can you write a law to do something other than what the Constitution says?
I think we would all say no... the Constitution is the ultimate authority. Then how come...
Trump's 'hero' justice offers roadmap after Supreme Court rejects birthright order
Speaker Mike Johnson, Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Tom Cotton are already weighing legislation and constitutional amendments
By Elaine Mallon Fox News
Published July 2, 2026President Donald Trump lost his Supreme Court bid to restrict birthright citizenship through executive order, but one of his own appointees may have handed Republicans a blueprint for pursuing much of the same goal through Congress.
Voting with the 6-3 majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that Executive Order 14160, which restricts automatic citizenship to people born to U.S. citizens or permanent residents, couldn't take effect. But in a concurring opinion, he also pointed to a different path forward. Kavanaugh argued the court should have resolved the case under federal law rather than the Constitution, laying out a potential legislative path for Congress to pursue changes to birthright citizenship.
Okay, here is a justice of the Supreme Court saying to pass a law to override the Constitution. Meanwhile, a riskier solution is being offered: amend the Constitution. That is scary! That opens the path for all types of evil things.
Kavanaugh said Trump couldn't use an executive order to change a law Congress had already passed, but instead suggested Congress could rewrite the law to limit birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.
"Congress could — consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country," he wrote.
I imagine that most people reading this are not lawyers, but tell me, do you see any wiggle room in this?
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.
I don't know about you, but that is pretty straightforward. I don't see any "ifs," "ands," or "buts," nor any "howevers," "except for," or any other qualifiers. There is just no wiggle room. It says what it says: "all persons"!
The qualifier that says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is undeniably true for all undocumented immigrants. The very fact that they are sitting in detention facilities proves that they are subject to the authority of ICE and CBP.
The other option is the Constitutional amendment route, and I find that to be the scary part. They want to pass an amendment limiting the Constitutional rights we now have! Think about that.
Once you have a Constitutional Convention, the floodgates are opened... I can see a party trying to stick in an amendment to limit abortions! I can see an amendment limiting our rights as trans people! After all, if they opened the convention to limit immigrants' rights, what's to stop them from adding to their list of "evil things"? It could become a vehicle for highly polarizing social issues.
They need 38 states to pass an amendment and 34 to call a convention... and they already have 23 solid Republican states!
No comments:
Post a Comment