Birthright Citizenship and the Executive

[Luis Gonzalez]

Birthright Citizenship and the Executive.
Why SCOTUS May Resolve the Question by Affirming Enforcement Authority, Not Redefining Citizenship

The Last Wire

For more than two centuries, Americans have treated birthright citizenship as automatic. Born here, citizen here. Simple. But the Constitution is not a slogan, and the Fourteenth Amendment is not self-executing folklore. It is text, shaped by history, enforced by institutions, and bounded by judgment.

The executive order now before the Court does not purport to amend the Constitution or overturn precedent. It focuses on a single, operative phrase in the Citizenship Clause: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That phrase is not surplusage. It is a limitation. And limitations, by their nature, require interpretation in application.

The question before the Court may not be what birthright citizenship means in every conceivable case. The narrower and more judicially comfortable question is whether the Executive has authority to interpret and enforce jurisdictional boundaries where the Constitution itself leaves room for judgment.

Founding Assumptions and the Role of Judgment

The Framers did not expect law to operate mechanically. James Madison warned in Federalist 51 that because men are not angels, power must be structured, constrained, and exercised with auxiliary precautions. That insight applies as much to enforcement as to legislation.

Continue reading at The Last Wire.

[Bigun]

Yet another great article @Luis Gonzalez

If I were on the court my ruling would be thus:

It is abundantly clear that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America and no other.

[libertybele]

SCOTUS will be ruling on this sometime next summer.  I think it will be one of the most important decisions of my lifetime and will have a huge impact on this country.  So far, the lower courts have blocked Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship and have been very lax on the interpretation of the 14th amendment.  I fear that SCOTUS will side with the judges and decisions of the lower courts.  Then there is also the issue of Roberts .... that's two strikes against the decision that I and most of us in here would like to see.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yet another great article @Luis Gonzalez

If I were on the court my ruling would be thus:

It is abundantly clear that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America and no other.

Thanks @Bigun. One can only hope.