President-elect Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship via executive action faces significant legal challenges due to the 1898 Supreme Court case *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*. This policy, however, is ironically juxtaposed against his own family’s history, as his niece, Mary Trump, points out that birthright citizenship enabled her grandfather’s immigration and subsequent success in America. The 14th Amendment’s role in securing citizenship for formerly enslaved people is also highlighted in contrast to Trump’s proposed policy. Despite his hardline stance, Trump expressed willingness to work with Democrats on a solution for “Dreamers.”
Read More
In a recent interview, President-elect Trump reiterated his intention to deport all undocumented immigrants, including those with U.S. citizen children, to avoid family separation. This policy, aligning with the views of his incoming “border czar,” would involve the deportation of entire families. He acknowledged potential public backlash but insisted on enforcing immigration laws, even if it means ending birthright citizenship by amending or circumventing the 14th Amendment. Trump believes these measures are necessary to address what he describes as the nation’s immigration crisis.
Read More
In a recent interview, Donald Trump stated his intention to pardon January 6th rioters and end birthright citizenship on his first day back in office. He plans to pursue the latter through executive action, despite its unconstitutionality under the 14th Amendment. Legal experts predict immediate and significant litigation should he attempt either action. Trump falsely claimed that the U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship and that ending it is necessary.
Read More
President-elect Trump aims to end birthright citizenship via executive order, mandating at least one US citizen parent for automatic citizenship and denying benefits to children of two undocumented parents. Legal experts overwhelmingly believe this action would violate the 14th Amendment and the precedent set by *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, rendering it likely unsuccessful in court. The proposed order could affect millions of children in mixed-status families, disproportionately impacting those of Mexican and Central American descent. Ending birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, a politically improbable feat.
Read More
Donald Trump has pledged to end birthright citizenship, a policy he believes is based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, by issuing an executive order on his first day back in office. This plan, which would require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident for a child to be considered a U.S. citizen, is likely to face legal challenges as it directly contradicts the amendment’s text. While the Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the issue, most legal experts believe the amendment’s language clearly grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The proposal’s implementation would also be complex, requiring federal agencies to verify the immigration status of both parents, which may not always be readily available.
Read More
This recent development regarding Jamie Raskin’s plan to kick Trump off the ballot is both intriguing and frustrating. On one hand, it’s refreshing to see a Democratic representative taking action and not backing down in the face of opposition. Raskin’s determination to push forward with legislation, despite the slim chances of success, is commendable. It’s a reminder that sometimes the fight for justice and democracy requires bold and unwavering action.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, which stated that Congress must pass a law to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, sparked Raskin’s efforts to revive legislation that would disqualify individuals who committed insurrection. This move is crucial in holding those responsible for the Capitol insurrection, like Trump, accountable for their actions.… Continue reading
As a resident of Colorado eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling on former President Donald J. Trump’s eligibility to hold office, I can’t help but feel a mix of anticipation and skepticism. The fact that the justices have expedited their decision-making process ahead of Super Tuesday certainly adds a layer of urgency to the situation. However, given the current political climate and the composition of the Court, it’s hard not to feel a sense of disillusionment.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in December, deeming Mr. Trump ineligible under the 14th Amendment due to his involvement in the insurrection, raised hopes for accountability and justice.… Continue reading
When I first heard that the US Supreme Court had ruled that Trump was wrongly removed from the Colorado ballot, I couldn’t help but feel a sinking sense of disappointment. It seems as though the sacred principle of states’ rights has been discarded, and the power of individual states to make decisions for the well-being of their citizens has been undermined. The court rationalized this decision based on the enforcement of the 14th Amendment, but in doing so, they have essentially opened the floodgates for potential abuse of power.
In the context of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding office, the implications are ominous.… Continue reading
US Supreme Court Justices Have “Strange” Views on Whether Trump is Disqualified
As an observer of the US Supreme Court’s recent oral arguments on whether former President Donald Trump should be disqualified from the ballot, I couldn’t help but notice the “strange” views expressed by some of the justices. While I understand that this topic is one of national significance, the case at hand pertains specifically to Colorado, making it a matter of Colorado’s prerogative to decide on the eligibility of candidates.
The Constitution grants states the right and duty to conduct their own elections, including determining the criteria for appearing on the ballot.… Continue reading
As I sat glued to the live oral arguments of the Supreme Court, I couldn’t help but feel a wave of nausea wash over me. The way these politicians manipulated the law, twisting and contorting it to suit their own agendas, was truly sickening. Whatever happened to the ideal of leaving things up to the states? Colorado Republicans made a decision that they simply didn’t want Trump on the ballot, and now they are trying to justify their actions under the guise of upholding states’ rights.
It’s ironic how these same politicians who claim to defend the right of states to choose how to handle issues like abortion are suddenly switching sides the moment a state chooses something they disagree with.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood