SCOTUS SCREW-UP

It is this man’s opinion there may be more in play with the recent SCOTUS ruling regarding lower federal courts ruling on Presidential Executive Orders.  If the 14th Amendment can be changed by Executive Order, our American society as we know it will be broken beyond repair.  Civil Rights will no longer be a thing guaranteed…the President even said as much.  Laws could be made for certain classes of people, which, as it stands, under the 14th Amendment cannot happen…we are all first-class citizens under the law.  Please note “all” is equivalent to 100 per cent of the citizens of this great nation.

Here are two areas of my concern.

Under attack by the present-day administration is the 14th Amendment.  In particular, the current administration wishes to do away with “birthright citizenship”.  The general consensus regarding birthright citizenship has been if a person is born on American soil, then that person is a citizen of the United States.  The argument has always been about “the soil” and not “the blood”.  This concept known as jus soli (the soil) means that anyone born in a particular country is a citizen of that country…otherwise known as birthright citizenship.  The concept of jus sanguinis (the blood) determines a person’s citizenship based on the blood or citizenship of parents.
  
Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship conflicts with a Supreme Court case from 1898 that held that the Citizenship Clause made citizens of all children born on U.S. soil with narrow exceptions that are not at issue in the case currently before the court.

However, there are some exceptions.  The 14th Amendment states all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to is jurisdiction are citizens.  But this clause excludes certain groups of people from claiming US citizenship regardless of being born in the U.S.  Those groups of people excluded by the “subject to jurisdiction clause are children of foreign diplomats that are stationed in the United States and some members of certain indigenous tribes whose relationship with the U.S. is limited.

In my opinion, what SCOTUS has done has given the Executive Branch (the President) the opportunity to change the Constitution without going through the amendment process.  By hearing the case brought before the Court by the Executive Branch and ruling that lower federal courts cannot rule against an executive order, the President’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship could become law.  This is akin to negating the 14th Amendment and its clause “ guaranteeing them (citizens) equal protection under state laws and forbidding states from infringing on the privileges or immunities of citizens” otherwise known as first class citizenship.

And if this were to happen, what other civil rights could be taken from the population?  Most of the American population has citizenship by the term birthright citizenship.  The common argument would be the Executive Order only applies to undocumented citizens having children in the U.S., but does it?

The first civil right I can think of that would be taken would be the right to vote.  After all, during his campaign, the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told Christians that if they vote for him this November (2024), "in four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote."  With the SCOTUS decision…could this happen?
  
And if the citizenship cannot vote…who then becomes the President?  Or will there be a change?

And, there is another question regarding the 14th Amendment that is far more troubling to me.  It deals with the Third Clause of the amendment.  Specifically, the Third Clause of the 14th Amendment bars those who previously took an oath to support the Constitution from holding office if they then engage in insurrection or rebellion against the US, or gave aid and comfort to its enemies.
​
I am confident no charges of insurrection will ever be brought against the President until, if it happens, when he leaves office.  Sitting Presidents are not normally prosecuted unless it is a high crime or misdemeanor against the government.  Even though the “January 6th Committee” conducted an exhaustive investigation into the January 6th insurrection, and evidence certainly provided the President had a hand in that event, no charges were brought against him.
 
BUT, the portion of the Third Clause that grabs my attention is “… or gave aid and comfort to its enemies.”  Did the President give aid or comfort to approximately 1500 insurrectionists he pardoned?  Many if not all had been arrested and convicted for their part in the attack on the Capitol, January 6th, 2021.  I can’t imagine spending a portion of my life behind bars…so any pardon or clemency would certainly give me relief which would provide me a degree of comfort.  I am somewhat sure, those who were being held for their conviction pertaining to the January 6th insurrection feel the same.
 
Yet, surprisingly, I haven’t heard a single elected official bring this to the table for discussion.  Why is that?
 
I suppose, for those of us who are old enough, the saying “Only the Shadow Knows” may apply.