By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump’s executive order aiming to revoke birthright citizenship for children of non-citizen parents has been deemed “blatantly unconstitutional” by a federal judge. The administration’s arguments, relying on 19th-century laws and misinterpretations of Supreme Court cases concerning Native American citizenship, are widely rejected by legal experts. The order’s fate hinges on whether judges prioritize historical precedent, particularly the 1898 *Wong Kim Ark* decision affirming birthright citizenship, or embrace the administration’s revisionist historical claims. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision will reveal its stance on the Trump administration’s actions and its interpretation of constitutional history.
Read the original article here
The headline itself – “Experts think Trump’s ‘blatantly unconstitutional’ order has a chance with SCOTUS” – is enough to make anyone’s head spin. It suggests a level of partisan bias within the Supreme Court that’s deeply unsettling. The idea that a clearly unconstitutional order could even be considered by the highest court in the land speaks volumes about the current political climate.
It’s difficult to reconcile the notion of an impartial Supreme Court with the reality of a court seemingly willing to overlook blatant constitutional violations. This isn’t just about a single order; it’s about the potential erosion of fundamental legal principles and the very fabric of our system of checks and balances. The perception, and perhaps the reality, is that the court’s decisions are now heavily influenced by political considerations rather than an objective interpretation of the law.
The belief that the Supreme Court conservatives are primarily concerned with adhering to historical precedent and tradition seems naive at best, bordering on wishful thinking. The suggestion that the outcome will depend on whether “conservatives take history and tradition seriously” feels disingenuous, especially given past decisions. There’s a pervasive feeling that the court’s decisions are driven by an agenda that prioritizes partisan objectives over upholding the Constitution.
This isn’t just a hypothetical concern; many believe that this current Supreme Court is actively dismantling core tenets of American governance. It’s not simply a matter of a 5-4 decision in favor of the executive branch; it feels like a deliberate attempt to reshape the legal landscape to align with a specific political ideology. The worry is that this is part of a larger, systematic effort to undermine the principles upon which the country was founded.
The question of whether the “checks and balances” we learned about in school still exist is a valid one. The perception is that one branch of government – the executive – is operating with impunity, essentially disregarding the limitations imposed by the other branches. This creates an atmosphere of concern and uncertainty about the future of democratic governance.
There’s a growing sense that we’ve strayed far from the principles of a constitutional republic. The idea that executive orders can circumvent the legislative process and even potentially overrule amendments is deeply troubling. The absence of effective checks on executive power fuels concerns about the possibility of an authoritarian regime.
Many feel that we’ve been sleepwalking toward this point, failing to recognize the potential consequences of unchecked power and a partisan judiciary. The shock that some express now is like the surprise of an abused spouse’s murder – it’s the culmination of a long pattern of behavior that should have been addressed long before the climax.
The strategic planning behind this situation is unsettling. The concern is that this is not simply a series of unfortunate events but a deliberate, long-term strategy to achieve a specific political goal. This includes the careful selection and placement of conservative judges, and the cultivation of a climate where constitutional principles are easily dismissed.
The implications of changing established constitutional interpretations are vast and potentially irreversible. The alteration of long-held precedents through judicial decisions could fundamentally reshape the country’s legal framework, threatening the rights and liberties of its citizens. The possibility of losing birthright citizenship, or reinterpreting other fundamental rights, is terrifying to many.
Many believe the Supreme Court is no longer an impartial arbiter of justice but a political tool. This perception is reinforced by the court’s apparent willingness to prioritize political expediency over upholding the rule of law. It underscores a lack of faith in the institution and a fear of what might come next.
The notion that the Supreme Court will somehow “come to the rescue” seems increasingly unrealistic. The court’s composition, its past decisions, and the current political climate suggest that any hope of a judicial intervention to restore balance is tenuous at best. This reality fosters a widespread feeling of helplessness and fear.
In essence, the headline isn’t just a shocking statement; it’s a reflection of the deeply unsettling state of American governance. The concern isn’t simply about a single executive order, but the potential for a complete dismantling of the constitutional framework that was meant to protect the country from precisely this type of unchecked power. The worry is that we are witnessing the final act of a long-planned strategy to reshape the country in a manner that violates its fundamental principles. The fact that this outcome even seems possible is, to many, simply mind-boggling.