Tag Archives: 14th Amendment

Destroying Democracy To “Save It”

Posted on by

First of all, America is not a democracy–it it a Representative Republic, and the people in Congress are supposed to be there to represent the voters and serve the people. Unfortunately, many in Congress have decided that their power and their will are more important than the will and the people. They know best, and if the people are going to vote ‘wrong’, they have to be overridden. On Saturday, The Gateway Pundit revealed the plan the uni-party has to keep President Trump from being President again.

The article reports:

RINO Representative Mike Gallagher (WI) will exit the House as early as next month.

Gallagher, who is currently serving as the chairman of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, last month announced that he will not seek reelection.

Instead of serving out the rest of his term, Gallagher will retire early leaving the GOP with a one-vote majority!

But it’s worse than that.

Gallagher announced he will leave in mid-April. If Gallagher would have left before April 9th he would have triggered a special election in his district. Because he is leaving after April 9th but still in April, there will be no special election so the seat will remain empty.

This ensures that Republicans will lose another seat in Congress.

This is how the Uniparty works.

They do everything they can to screw their voters.

So what happens next? The plan is for one or two uni-party Republicans to leave before November. At that point the Democrats take control of the House. All investigations of the Biden crime family end. Evidence might mysteriously go missing. President Trump is charged with violating the 14th Amendment and prevented from taking office. At that point we  have lost our Republic.

I hope that the above scenario is pure fiction. However, based on what we have seen during the past three years–SWAT raids on people who simply walked through the Capitol on January 6th, prisoners denied bail or hearings for four years (with no one defending their Constitutional rights), and the totally politicization of our justice system–I am not ruling anything out.

Why Should They Listen To The Voters?

Posted on by

On Saturday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about one possible outcome of the 2024 election. It is becoming very obvious that as the powers that be work harder and harder to make sure that President Trump does not get a second term, more and more voters are deciding to support him–just to have their voices heard. This is going to make for a very interesting year.

The article reports:

In 2001, 2005 and 2017, some Democrat House members objected to the certification of electoral votes for the winning Republican presidential candidate. Those objections, while “denialist,” were only symbolic. But Democrat leaders in the House are now suggesting that if they control that body following November’s election–as they well might–they may refuse to allow a victorious Donald Trump to take office.

Notice that the objects to the electoral votes were not allowed in 2020–they were pre-empted by the events outside the Capitol and a parliamentary procedure was used to block them when the House reconvened.

The article concludes:

The Democrats have become so insane on the subject of Donald Trump that it is hard to know which of their mutterings to take seriously. But if Trump wins the election and a Democrat-controlled House refuses to certify his election on the ground that he is an “insurrectionist” under the 14th Amendment, we will be past the point of a constitutional crisis. If that happens, the only realistic path forward will be disunion, possibly accompanied by civil war, but preferably not.

This is one reason why the Supreme Court should put the 14th Amendment theory out of its misery, once and for all. It is obvious that the drafters of that amendment meant the just-concluded Civil War, in which 600,000 Americans lost their lives, when they referred to “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. In contrast, the January 6 protest was not one of the 50 most destructive riots of the last few years, and the only person killed was Ashli Babbitt. Not a single participant in the protest was arrested in possession of a firearm. Some insurrection!

In the interest of preserving the Republic, the Supreme Court should rule definitively that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Donald Trump.

Stay tuned.

Common Sense Scores A Small Victory

Posted on by

In many schools across the nation, teachers are told not to share information with parents if a child is identifying as a gender different from their birth sex. The child can change clothes in school and be addressed by their ‘new’ name. Teachers are specifically told not to share this information with parents. In California, two teachers were fired for telling parents.

On Thursday, Red State reported:

In December, our Jeff Charles brought you the story of how two teachers from the Escondido Union School District teachers were placed on administrative leave after they refused to hide the gender identities of students from their parents, citing their religious beliefs. The pair sued, and in September 2023, Roger Benitez, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, issued a preliminary injunction against the district and barred it from enforcing such policies.

The “new policy appears to undermine their own constitutional rights while it conflicts with knowledgeable medical opinion,” he wrote. 

On Wednesday, Benitez weighed in on the matter again and told the school to get the teachers back in the classroom:

The order from Judge Roger Benitez says the teachers, who haven’t been allowed in their classrooms since last May, must be allowed to return by next Tuesday, Jan. 15. In September, Benitez blocked their employer, Escondido Union School District, from forcing them to comply with their policy to socially transition kids to different gender identities behind their parents’ backs.

“Both sides are expected to work in good faith going forward to resolve this matter,” Benitez wrote Wednesday. 

The article concludes:

The issue boils down to rights: whose should be primary, the parent’s or the student’s?

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution gives a lot of deference to parents regarding their children’s upbringing, education and care. But under California’s Education Code, students have certain privacy rights.

“That is the crux of the issue — what is more superior, a child’s right to privacy or a parent’s right to know about their child’s life?” said Jillian Duggan-Herd, a family law attorney.

More and more parents around the country are sounding off and making themselves heard, declaring that the answer is simple: the parents should parent, not the government, not schools. In my view, official policies at schools or businesses or government agencies requiring employees to lie or misinform are quite simply unethical, regardless of what subject they’re instructed to be dishonest about. 

Families are one of the foundations of our society. To exclude parents from such an important issue in their child’s life is to undermine that foundation.

About That Fourteenth Amendment Thing…

Posted on by

I am not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be one. However, I am concerned about the lawfare being conducted against President Trump.

In the January 2024 issue of Newsmax Magazine, Hans von Spakovsky wrote a commentary about the use of the 14th Amendment to keep President Trump off of the primary ballot in several states.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states:

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Note that Congress may remove such disability.

The article in Newsmax notes:

In 1872, Congress passed an Amnesty Act providing that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of Congress who had served just before and during the Civil War, as well as a limited number of other officials.

In 1898, Congress passed a second Amnesty Act getting rid of these remaining exceptions, providing that the “disability imposed by section 3…heretofore incurred is hereby removed.”

That sounds to me like using the 14th Amendment to keep President Trump off of the ballot does not agree with the laws Congress has passed since the 14th Amendment.

Also, doesn’t there have to be a trial and a conviction?

It should also be noted that the removal of President Trump from the ballot represents taking away the right of the American people to vote for whoever they choose. This sounds like something that happens in dictatorships. The only reason to remove someone from the ballot is if they do not have enough support to run for election. Obviously that is not the problem with President Trump.

 

This May Not Be Going As Planned

Posted on by

On Tuesday, NBC News reported that a Michigan judge has refused to hear the case that would remove President Trump from the ballot in 2024.

The article reports:

A Michigan judge on Tuesday dismissed an effort to keep former President Donald Trump off the state’s ballot in 2024.

The judge said that under Michigan law, the secretary of state does not have the authority to intervene in a primary election if the party chooses to list a candidate who would not qualify for the office.

“The ultimate decision is made by the respective political party, with the consent of the listed candidate,” the judge wrote.

The decision comes after a group of Michigan voters in September filed a legal challenge to Trump’s candidacy, arguing that his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and his and conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, making him ineligible for office.

If January 6th was an insurrection, it was the first insurrection in history where the police opened the doors and the insurrectionists had no guns. At some point the full video evidence will be released, and the public will realize that they have been lied to. The only person shot in the ‘insurrection’ was an unarmed civilian. There was also a death in the tunnel due to police brutality (article here).

I firmly believe that January 6th was a false flag operation designed to keep President Trump permanently out of the White House. Otherwise, why were his instructions to the crowd constantly misquoted?

The Court Gets It Right

Posted on by

On November 10th, The Epoch Times reported that the Minnesota Supreme Court has refused to take a case designed to remove President Trump from the ballot.

The article reports:

The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit that sought to keep former President Donald Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot on Wednesday, after having heard arguments on whether they should take the case.

In a brief opinion and order written by Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, the justices said the petition was dismissed without prejudice.

Free Speech for People, a liberal group, had sued on behalf of eight local voters, arguing that the secretary of state putting President Trump on the ballot would be an “error.”

The article notes the reason the group has tried to remove President Trump from the ballot:

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship and equal rights to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. Ratified after the Civil War, it also included a section that prohibited those who had participated in “rebellions” or “insurrections” against the nation from holding office.

The Minnesota petition argued that, under section three of the 14th Amendment, President Trump is disqualified from holding elected office again because he engaged in an “insurrection.”

There are some problems with this. The most obvious is the fact that generally speaking insurrectionists have guns. The only people who had guns on January 6th were the police, and the only person who was shot that day was an innocent civilian. The second problem with this charge is the speech President Trump gave on that day. In his speech on January 6th, President Trump stated, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Those are not the words of an insurrectionist.

What Rights?

Posted on by

On Wednesday, BizPacReview posted an article about Cowboys for Trump co-founder Couy Griffin. A New Mexico judge has barred Couy Griffin from holding public office for life following his conviction for trespassing on Jan. 6 at the US Capitol. Note that he was convicted of trespassing.

The article reports:

State District Court Judge Francis Mathew issued the ruling on Tuesday asserting that Griffin had engaged in insurrection and violated the 14th Amendment, according to the Daily Mail. The determination prohibits Griffin from holding or seeking local or federal office and is the first ruling of its kind. The constitutionality of such a ruling will almost certainly be challenged.

“This decision marks the first time since 1869 that a court has disqualified a public official under Section 3, and the first time that any court has ruled the events of January 6, 2021, an insurrection,” Citizens for Ethics noted concerning the ruling.

The elected county commissioner was convicted in federal court of a misdemeanor for entering Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, without going inside the building. He engaged in no violence that day but just because he was there, he was sentenced to 14 days and given credit for time served.

The judge’s ruling under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment removes Griffin from his position as a commissioner in Otero County in southern New Mexico. He is also barred from serving as a presidential elector.

Griffin was convicted of a misdemeanor. Note that his participation in the protest on January 6th was also an excuse for removing him from his position as a commissioner in addition to preventing him from running for office again. There is no way that is reasonable. This is a shot across the bow for anyone who takes a stand against any policy or person in the Biden administration. Protesters who are conservatives will no longer have the civil rights accorded to them in the U.S. Constitution. The January 6th prisoners are proof of that. This is also part of the move to block President Trump from running for office or holding office if he is elected.

More Desperation

Posted on by

On Saturday, Townhall reported that an Arizona judge ruled against voting groups seeking to prevent Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, both Republicans from Arizona, as well as State Rep. Mark Finchem, a fellow Republican from the state, from appearing on the ballot. This is one of many lawsuits Democrats have initiated to keep key Republicans off the ballot in November. The uniparty in Washington does not like to be challenged.

The article reports:

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury ruled against the voter groups, as Ryan King reported for The Washington Examiner, based on grounds to sue. The groups bringing the suit tried to claim that the Arizona Republican lawmakers had participated in an “insurrection” on January 6, based on their presence at the rally before the rioters headed for the Capitol.

Note that they were present at the rally where the President stated the following, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. today we will see whether republicans stand strong for the integrity of our elections but whether or not they stand strong for our country.” That is hardly a call for an insurrection. The Democrats are working hard to give the impression that what happened on January 6th was an insurrection so they can then use the the 14th Amendment to disqualify anyone from running for election who supports President Trump.

As I reported on February 21st (article here):

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “No person shall be a … Representative in Congress … who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

Hopefully we have enough good judges to put an end to this legal foolishness.

 

 

This Is What Desperation Looks Like

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Epoch Times reported that Indiana Democrats have attempted to disqualify Representative Jim Banks (R-Ind.) from running in the November general election. The attempt was made because Representative Banks contested the 2020 election results. There have been similar attempts to disqualify other Republican candidates in other states. Thankfully, the bipartisan Indiana Election Commission dismissed the challenge to Representative Banks.

The article reports:

Aaron “A.J.” Calkins of Fort Wayne, Indiana, who’s running in a three-way Democratic Party primary for the right to face third-term U.S. Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) in the November general election, filed a formal challenge on Feb. 10. Calkins claimed in the filing that Banks was guilty of a “violation of the 14th Amendment supporting an insurrection.”

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “No person shall be a … Representative in Congress … who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

This so-called disqualification clause that’s part of the 14th Amendment is a post-Civil War measure that, among other things, was aimed at keeping individuals who fought for the defeated Confederacy out of Congress. The amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868, a little more than three years after Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia surrendered.

The clause was “meant for Confederate officers who actually took up arms against the United States,” J. Christian Adams, president of the Indianapolis-based Public Interest Legal Foundation, recently told The Epoch Times.

The novel theory that someone can be tossed from the ballot for something that falls short of an actual insurrection comes from attorney Marc Elias, who has a long history of successfully challenging election integrity laws in court. He laid out a blueprint for using the 14th Amendment to disqualify Republicans in a Dec. 20, 2021, Twitter post.

“My prediction for 2022: Before the midterm election, we will have a serious discussion about whether individual Republican House Members are disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from serving in Congress,” he wrote. “We may even see litigation.”

We have heard the name Marc Elias before. He was a central figure in the ‘RussiaGate’ conspiracy. He was the man who hired Fusion GPS for the Clinton presidential campaign of 2016.

The article concludes:

Before the commission voted to reject the challenge, its chairman, Paul Okeson, said the events of Jan. 6, 2021, were “a regrettable mark in history,” but he knew of no evidence that Banks was guilty of participating in an insurrection.

After the hearing, Banks claimed vindication.

“Many Democrats in Washington hope to weaponize the 14th Amendment to disenfranchise President Trump’s 74 million voters,” Banks said in a statement. “I hope they watched today’s unanimous decision.”

Expect more of these attempts to disqualify Republican candidates as we get closer to the mid-term elections. The Democrat Party is doing anything and everything it can to hold on to power. They do not want to fact the consequences of the Republicans taking charge and actually investigating some of the recent escapades of the Democrat Party.

Further Dividing Americans With The Covid Relief Bill

Posted on by

Yesterday The New York Post posted an article about some of the items in the Covid Relief Bill.

The article reports:

Polls show most Americans support the federal COVID-19 relief bill. But if they knew what’s in it, they might feel differently. The bill is an affront to the American ideal of equal treatment under law — and a slap in the face for people who want everyone helped fairly.   

Section 1005 of the bill offers “socially disadvantaged” farm owners total debt forgiveness of up to hundreds of thousands of no-strings dollars per farmer. But white men needn’t apply. The bill’s definition of “socially disadvantaged,” drawn from elsewhere in federal law, limits aid to racial groups who faced historic discrimination.

Newly elected Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), who proposed the measure, says it will make up for years of discrimination. Sorry, senator, but this is discrimination.

Discrimination likewise mars the bill’s aid to restaurants. It grants restaurant owners up to $5 million per facility to offset losses caused by lockdowns. That’s a lifeline for restaurants barely hanging on.

Here’s the hitch: Only women, veterans and owners of “socially and economically disadvantaged” concerns (again, defined racially elsewhere in federal law) may apply during the program’s first three weeks. Most white males go to the back of the line, even if their needs are more pressing.  

These items in the bill need to be challenged in court–our Constitution states that we are equal under the law (a principle guaranteed by the 14th Amendment). This bill creates a situation where some people are more equal than others.

The article continues:

The bill looks more like reparations than COVID relief. It says farm aid is “for the purposes of addressing the longstanding and widespread discrimination against socially disadvantaged farmers.” Truth is, farmers have been struggling for a decade, and more than half lose money year after year. Minority-owned farms are generally less indebted than those owned by whites, though diminished access to credit may be part of the reason. White and minority farmers alike need debt relief.

Sen. Chuck Schumer crisscrossed the Empire State last weekend, bragging about his role in the relief bill and claiming credit for the $25 billion in aid to restaurants. He warned that 54 percent of New York restaurant owners won’t be able to survive the next six months without help. “They’re needed, because they’re one of the biggest employers in every community in New York, whether it’s urban, suburban . . . or rural.”

That’s the point, Senator. Instead of dwelling on racial or gender equity, the relief bill should focus on ensuring economic survival. All will benefit.

The article concludes:

As Congress debates the relief bill, Republicans should protest the racist giveaways. They’ve hardly been mentioned, and the public is unaware. More are on the way: Warnock and four other Democrats, including New York’s Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, introduced a bill on Feb. 5 to give 32 million acres of farmland to black farmers over the next 10 years. None to whites. Reparations without the label. What’s next?

Racism won’t cure past racism. And it won’t unite the nation.

Voters need to wake up before the 2022 elections and remove the people who support this sort of legal inequality. This bill and those like it will only divide America.

 

 

A Moderate That May Not Be So Moderate

Posted on by

Townhall posted an article today about West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. Senator Manchin is currently seen as a possible brake on some of the more radical policies being discussed by the Biden regime. A recent remark during an interview might cast a shadow on that idea.

The article reports:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has become the moderate Democrat with much more sense than his colleagues. He repeatedly said he thought impeaching President Donald Trump, for a second time, was “ill-advised,” especially since there are not 19 Republicans in the Senate that would move to convict. But now the West Virginia senator has a suggestion: using the 14th Amendment to remove Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) from office.

“Let me read you what the 14th Amendment, Section 3 says. ‘No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.’ Would you support, senator, the removal of Sen. Hawley and Sen. Cruz, through the 14th Amendment Section 3?” PBS News’ Margaret Hoover asked. 

‘Well, they should look – absolutely. I mean, basically, that should be a consideration. And he should you know, he understands that, Ted’s a very bright individual and I get along fine with Ted. But what he did was totally outside of the realm of our responsibilities,” Manchin explained. “Listen to the conversations that people have had, listen to some of the congress people that are still speaking, you know? Listen, around the country, people in different law, in elected positions, these people should be held accountable, because it’s sedition.”

Manchin went on to explain that the United States was formed because our Founding Fathers were tired of living under the tyrannical rule of King George. They believed in a republic so much that they “gave up everything” in pursuit of this new adventure. In his eyes, Cruz and Hawley’s objections to certifying the election results went against the Founding Fathers’ intentions and beliefs.

First of all, how did Senators Hawley and Cruz engage in insurrection? Was it because they contested the 2020 presidential election?

Might I remind you (from Fox News December 31, 2020)

The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.

That forced the chambers to leave their joint session and debate separately for two hours on whether to reject Ohio’s electoral votes. Neither did. But the objection by Boxer and Tubbs serves as a modern precedent for what is likely to happen in Congress on Jan. 6.

Notably, some Democrats lauded Boxer’s move at the time, including Durbin himself.

If Democrats want to bring Americans together and heal our divide, this is not the way to do it.

When Government Ignores The Constitution

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article yesterday about an incident in San Jose, California, that should give us pause.

The article reports:

In 2013, Lori Rodriguez called San Jose police to her home because her husband was having a mental health crisis and making violent threats. Seven years later, she is petitioning the Supreme Court to force the city to return her guns.

“It’s not right. I shouldn’t have to do this to get back what’s mine,” Rodriguez told the Washington Free Beacon. “They violated several of my constitutional rights.”

Rodriguez claims police ordered her to open the couple’s gun safe so they could seize all of the weapons in the home after her husband was detained for making threats that the city says included “shooting up schools.” Cops seized not only her husband’s weapons but also the guns that were personally registered to Rodriguez. The city has repeatedly rebuffed her requests to return her property.

The suit is now the sole case with Second Amendment implications remaining before the Court after the justices rejected 10 other gun-rights cases on June 15. Rodriguez’s legal challenge comes as the federal government and a number of states debate “red flag” bills that would allow authorities to deny gun rights to citizens. It has the potential to clarify the extent to which the Second Amendment protects individuals from seizures of firearms.

San Jose city attorney Richard Doyle did not respond to a request for comment. The city defended its actions, saying that authorities were within their rights to confiscate the guns, calling Rodriguez’s claim “borderline frivolous.”

“If the government has lawful authority to effect the forfeiture and observes the requirements of due process in so doing, it has complied with the Constitution,” Doyle said in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. “The forfeiture does nothing whatever to impair the previous owner’s right to buy, possess, or use firearms, and notwithstanding that the owner may recover the full market value of the guns through their transfer and sale.”

The article continues:

Several of the guns confiscated from Rodriguez by San Jose police have special sentimental value, according to Rodriguez. Police confiscated not only handguns that she and her husband purchased but also a war souvenir inherited from a family member.

“One of them is a gun my great uncle brought back from WWII,” she said. “I really want that one back. You can’t replace that one, obviously.”

Don Kilmer, Rodriguez’s lawyer, said that while the case implicates the 2nd Amendment, in addition to the 4th and even 14th Amendments, it ultimately comes down to an undisputed fact: Lori Rodriguez is not prohibited from owning the firearms San Jose took from her house.

“Her mental health has never been at issue,” Kilmer told the Free Beacon. “The law that the city is holding these guns under says that you can confiscate weapons of people who are mentally ill. Lori is not mentally ill.”

In the years since the initial police call, the Rodriguez family continues to live together, but Lori has taken steps to ensure she can legally own the confiscated firearms. She has transferred all of the firearms into her name and she is the only family member who knows the combination to the gun safe. Her lawyers argue that she is in compliance with all California gun laws—including those for individuals who live with people who can not own firearms themselves.

If her husband was the problem and he had no access to the gun safe, how can the city justify taking her guns away? This is definitely overreach.

Reality vs Practicality

Posted on by

Yesterday Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review about birthright citizenship. President Trump is considering ending birthright citizenship by executive order. Actually, it’s not so much a question of ending birthright citizenship as it is reviewing exactly what the 14th Amendment actually says.

The article explains:

My friend John Eastman explained why the 14th Amendment does not mandate birthright citizenship in this 2015 New York Times op-ed. In a nutshell, the Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The highlighted term, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was understood at the time of adoption to mean not owing allegiance to any other sovereign. To take the obvious example, if a child is born in France to a married couple who are both American citizens, the child is an American citizen.

If I am living in Britain on a work visa and have a child, that child is not automatically a British citizen. Why should America do things differently?

The article concludes:

Moreover, it seems to me that, because Congress has weighed in on citizenship by codifying the 14th Amendment, the courts will swat down any executive order on the ground that it exceeds the president’s authority. That is, the courts will not even have to reach the merits of what jurisdiction means for purposes of the 14th Amendment and Section 1401.

We have seen something like this in an area of more certain executive power. President Bush attempted unilaterally to set up military commissions in wartime under his commander-in-chief authority. Even though there was plenty of precedent supporting this, the Supreme Court invalidated the commissions and told the president he needed Congress’s statutory blessing. (Congress later enacted the Military Commissions Act.)

Consequently, if the president actually issues an executive order changing the birthright-citizenship policy, I doubt the sun will set before an injunction is issued. I am in favor of changing the current understanding of birthright citizenship, but I believe such a change must be done by statute to have any hope of surviving court-scrutiny . . . and even then, I give it less than a 50-50 chance.

Stay tuned.