By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order blocking President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, deeming it “blatantly unconstitutional.” The order, granted in response to a lawsuit filed by Washington state and other Democratic-led states, halts implementation for 14 days pending further legal proceedings. The judge questioned the legal basis for the executive order, highlighting the potential for significant harm to affected children. The Trump administration argued that the 14th Amendment allows for exclusion of certain children, while the plaintiffs contend the order violates the amendment and will cause substantial financial and logistical burdens on state programs.
Read the original article here
A federal judge in Seattle swiftly blocked Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship, deeming it “blatantly unconstitutional.” Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, issued a temporary restraining order halting implementation for 14 days, pending further legal arguments. The judge’s incredulity was palpable, questioning the legal basis for the order and expressing astonishment that anyone would consider it constitutional. This decisive action underscores the inherent conflict between the executive order and the Fourteenth Amendment’s clear guarantee of birthright citizenship.
The judge’s sharp rebuke highlights the seemingly insurmountable legal hurdles facing Trump’s attempt to unilaterally alter a fundamental aspect of American citizenship. The 14th Amendment’s text leaves little room for the interpretation the executive order attempted to impose. Arguments suggesting the amendment is outdated or inapplicable to current circumstances seem easily refuted by the amendment’s unambiguous language, and would open the door to reinterpretations of other established constitutional rights.
Concerns were raised that even a conservative-leaning Supreme Court might hesitate to overturn such a clear constitutional provision. However, the underlying motivation might be less about legal interpretation and more about pursuing a specific political agenda. This approach, prioritizing political goals over legal precedent, raises broader concerns about the potential erosion of the rule of law and the integrity of the judicial process.
The swift judicial response is seen by some as a welcome sign of the judiciary’s continued adherence to its constitutional mandate. However, there’s recognition that this is only the first step in a lengthy legal battle. The temporary nature of the restraining order anticipates extensive legal challenges, potentially extending the process for years, even beyond Trump’s possible future influence. This protracted legal fight is considered by some to be a strategic advantage, possibly delaying or neutralizing the impact of the order until its relevance is diminished.
The choice of a Seattle court to initially address the challenge raised questions about jurisdiction and the significance of the decision. Concerns are present that even a lower court victory doesn’t guarantee ultimate success, as the Supreme Court’s final say holds the power to reinterpret constitutional law. The inherent subjectivity in constitutional interpretation, particularly with a deeply divided court, leaves the outcome of any appeal uncertain. Hypothetical arguments against birthright citizenship, based on changing circumstances not envisioned by the founders, are deemed as easily applicable to other constitutional guarantees, potentially destabilizing the very framework of American rights.
The judge’s decision is viewed as a positive development, reinforcing hope that the system continues to function. However, fears persist regarding the potential for intensified political polarization and civil unrest. This case is not just about birthright citizenship; it’s about the integrity of the judicial process and the rule of law. Proposals for constitution-based voting requirements are considered by some as potentially effective measures, but also risk alienating segments of the population. The ongoing battle highlights the deep societal divisions around immigration and the potential for the abuse of executive power for political gain.
The executive order’s inherent illegality is underscored by its direct conflict with a constitutional amendment. This blatantly illegal attempt to circumvent the amendment process through executive fiat highlights concerns about the president’s understanding of, and respect for, the US Constitution. The ensuing legal battles will be scrutinized as a barometer of the judicial system’s capability to maintain its independence and uphold the rule of law amidst political pressures. The resulting legal battle has been predictably met with calls for retaliation against the judge and those who oppose the executive order. The use of such tactics to intimidate the judiciary, regardless of outcome, fuels concerns about the potential for democratic erosion.
There are contrasting viewpoints on birthright citizenship itself, with some supporting its abolition, but acknowledging that it cannot be achieved through a simple executive order. Repealing birthright citizenship would require a formal constitutional amendment, a far more complex and deliberative process than the executive action taken. This highlights the importance of respecting established legal processes and procedures over actions based on political expediency. The impact of simply declaring an intention to end birthright citizenship is recognized as having its own political power, regardless of the ultimate legal result.
The issue isn’t merely about a legal challenge; it’s about the very nature of governance and the delicate balance of power within a democracy. The actions of those involved will be watched and analyzed to understand the long-term impacts on the political landscape and the effectiveness of the judicial system in safeguarding the constitution. The ongoing legal battle serves as a test case for the resilience of the US judicial system in the face of political pressure and ideological conflicts.