Not an April Fool's Joke

Tomorrow, April 1, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States is scheduled to hear arguments of the Trump v. Barbara Case.  This is not an April Fool’s joke.

This judicial review is centered on the January 2025 Executive Order (EO) signed by President Trump to limit the citizenship of children born in the United States to undocumented citizens living in the United States.  

Historically speaking, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was to grant citizenship to slaves freed by the end of the Civil War, who were not born in the United States.  Since that time, the 14th Amendment has always been interpreted to mean anyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States.  The President doesn’t believe that to be what the 14th Amendment was meant to address and he wishes to change the decades old meaning of it.
  
The motivation for the President’s action is unclear, and apparently undefined.

In my opinion, there is a bigger question this court case represents.

Constitutionally, there are four methods to amend the Constitution.  All four methods require the use of the Congress and States. 
 
The four methods for amending the U.S. Constitution are:

1. Proposal by Congress & Ratification by State Legislatures: The standard method where 2/3 of both houses of Congress propose an amendment, and 3/4 of state legislatures ratify it (used for 26 amendments).
2. Proposal by Congress & Ratification by State Conventions: 2/3 of both houses of Congress propose an amendment, and 3/4 of special state conventions ratify it (used only for the 21st Amendment)
3. Proposal by National Convention & Ratification by State Legislatures: 2/3 of state legislatures apply to Congress to call a national convention for proposal, and 3/4 of state legislatures ratify it.
4. Proposal by National Convention & Ratification by State Conventions: 2/3 of state legislatures apply to Congress to call a national convention for proposal, and 3/4 of special state conventions ratify it.

Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the President, the Court will have opened the door for the President to change, alter, amend, or possibly do away with any part or the entire Constitution.  In other words, the four methods of amending the Constitution are all but gone and forgotten.

There have been many unfounded charges that the President may run for a third term.  When asked about a 3rd term, the President has been vague about his candidacy.  Clearly, this is defined in the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution, which permits a President to serve two fully elected terms (8 years) or a maximum of 10 years.

The President wishes to impose federal regulations on the states who have the responsibility to carry out elections.  This is part of the controversial SAVE ACT.  By the terms in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, of the Constitution referred to as the Elections Clause, indicates that state legislatures will establish the times, places, and manner of holding elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate, subject to Congress making or altering such state regulations (except as to the place of choosing Senators).   The Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.
​
The Presidential EO to change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the possibility of a third term, and the changing of Article 1 Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution are some of the changes the President wants to take place, but obviously, these changes are in conflict with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.

All of this is possible should the Supreme Court agrees with the President in Trump v. Barbara.  The States and Congress may no longer hold the power to change or add to the Constitution because theoretically, the President could over-rule any decision by Congress or even the Supreme Court by EO.  In other words, the power of the government will rest solely with the President who can just about do what he wants.  That isn’t an elected President, that is a dictator.

This country was based on the premise of what President Lincoln said in his famous Gettysburg Address,  “Of the People, By the People, For the People “.  It would be a shame to have the voice of the people not heard by the President.

That is just one man’s opinion…mine.  I hope you have one too!