By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, directly contradicting the 14th Amendment and established Supreme Court precedent, most notably *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*. The order’s immediate legal challenges have a high likelihood of success, despite the current Supreme Court’s conservative leaning. Even the justices in *Plessy v. Ferguson*, known for its racist ruling, upheld birthright citizenship in *Wong Kim Ark*, demonstrating the strength of the 14th Amendment’s clear language. The continued assertion of birthright citizenship reaffirms the nation’s commitment to legal equality for all born within its borders.
Read the original article here
Presidents can’t unilaterally end birthright citizenship enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment. The assertion that President Trump’s executive order attempting to do so is almost certain to be struck down reflects a common sentiment, yet the situation is far more nuanced and unsettling than a simple legal prediction.
The belief that the Supreme Court would automatically strike down such an order rests on the assumption of a functioning, impartial judiciary upholding the rule of law. However, recent events and the current political climate cast considerable doubt on this assumption.
The current Supreme Court’s demonstrated willingness to prioritize partisan interests over established constitutional rights raises serious questions. Their past decisions suggest a potential for upholding the executive order, even if it directly contradicts decades of legal precedent and established interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Further complicating matters is the composition of the lower courts. These courts, increasingly populated with ideologically aligned appointees, cannot be relied upon to consistently deliver rulings based solely on legal merit. This undermines the usual checks and balances intended to prevent executive overreach.
The uncertainty extends beyond the judicial branch. The executive branch’s willingness to disregard established norms and processes casts a long shadow over any judicial decision. What does a court ruling mean if the executive branch simply ignores it, aided by complicit agencies like the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense?
The idea that “Presidents can’t do that” rings hollow when faced with the reality of an executive branch increasingly emboldened to operate outside established legal and constitutional parameters. The lack of accountability, coupled with political maneuvering and the stacking of lower courts with partisan judges, erodes faith in the system’s ability to safeguard constitutional rights.
The “almost certain” language employed in many headlines reflects a grim acceptance of the diminished state of our legal and political institutions. It acknowledges the possibility of a legal challenge and defeat for the executive order, but recognizes the lack of guarantees in a system where the rule of law appears increasingly secondary to partisan power plays.
Even if lower courts rule against the executive order, the Supreme Court’s potential to overturn those rulings, possibly through novel reinterpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment, introduces considerable uncertainty. The possibility of a radical reinterpretation of the amendment, echoing past controversial decisions, is not outlandish considering the Supreme Court’s recent track record.
The potential consequences extend beyond the immediate issue of birthright citizenship. A successful circumvention of established legal frameworks in this instance could set a dangerous precedent, normalizing executive power exceeding constitutional limitations. This represents a significant step towards eroding the principles of democratic governance.
The concern isn’t just about the policy itself, but also the mindset that drives it. A disregard for established legal processes, coupled with a willingness to ignore judicial decisions, creates a climate of instability and undermines faith in the integrity of government institutions.
In conclusion, while the legal arguments against the executive order are strong, the current political and judicial climate renders its ultimate fate uncertain. The prediction that it “will almost certainly be struck down” serves as a cautious acknowledgment of the legal arguments while highlighting the significant threats to the rule of law and democratic processes. The absence of clear guarantees underscores the fragility of our institutions and the growing sense of unease surrounding the future.