This is not how constitutional law works. You can't amend the 14th Amendment by an executive order. The Axios piece does a good job explaining, but I wish @jonathanvswan in this clip had asked Trump these same fatal questions directly. axios.com/trump-birthrig…
2/ Here's the key point from @jonathanvswan: "But others — such as Judge James C. Ho [very conservative Trump appointee] - say the line in the amendment refers to the legal obligation to follow U.S. laws, which applies to all foreign visitors (except diplomats) and immigrants..."
3/ "He has written that changing how the 14th Amendment is applied would be 'unconstitutional.'"
14th A: "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."
14th A: "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."
4/ Ho's view is supported by history and the overwhelming consensus of judges and legal scholars. Eastman and Anton are fringe outliers, and they are wrong. "Subject to jurisdiction thereof" was clearly meant to exclude foreign diplomats. Other visitors are subject to US law.
5/ I would venture to say that there isn't a single vote on the Supreme Court to uphold Trump's overreach here. It will be 9-0. But this is what Trump wants: to be overruled by the Court and to attack the courts and the Deep State in 2020 for his white nationalist base.
6/ @jonathanvswan, if Trump declared he would remove equal protection or free press from the Constitution by executive order, would you be “excited” to cover such an obvious distraction stunt and giggle on camera about it?
@axios: this was bad click-bait “both-sides” journalism.
@axios: this was bad click-bait “both-sides” journalism.
7/ @LindseyGrahamSC, so desperate to run for president on the Trump racist platform, sinks even further into the Trump rot. He knows better, which makes this so much worse.
8/ This part of the 14th A. was written to specifically reverse the disastrous Dred Scott decision, which ruled that blacks were not and could never be U.S. citizens. This decision helped trigger Civil War. (h/t @Susan_Hennessey)...
9/ 1860s Republicans used "jus soli" ("law of the soil") birthright citizenship to guarantee citizenship, regardless of how one was brought to the land. Keep in mind the background of the slave trade. This was the racist background they were overturning with a broad clear rule.
10/ Without a clear bright line birthright rule, the rules are up for grabs - and back to racial politicization. The GOP 150 years betrays itslegacy by reversing this commitment in violation of the Constitution as part of a broad, dangerous racially demonizing campaign. Shame.
