Trump Pushes To Kill Birthright Citizenship. Supreme Court Could Help Him Do It
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖Trump's administration is attempting to end birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment, citing arguments from an 1896 segregationist Supreme Court case (Plessy v. Ferguson).
- ❖Legal scholars and the host argue that an executive order cannot invalidate a constitutional amendment, but Trump's action aimed to force the issue to the Supreme Court.
- ❖Republicans and MAGA supporters argue the 14th Amendment only applies to descendants of enslaved people, not all born in the U.S., specifically targeting undocumented workers and non-white immigrants.
- ❖The host and guests express strong concern that the Supreme Court's conservative majority will overturn decades of precedent, similar to the Roe v. Wade decision, due to perceived political alignment.
- ❖The 14th Amendment's clause 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is at the core of the legal debate, with critics arguing the conservative court will twist its interpretation.
- ❖The panel views the Supreme Court as actively working to take rights away, rather than grant them, with potential implications for the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights protections.
- ❖The political nature of Supreme Court appointments and the perceived lack of qualifications for some federal judges are highlighted as root causes of this judicial vulnerability.
Insights
1Trump's Strategy to Challenge Birthright Citizenship
Donald Trump's administration initiated efforts to end birthright citizenship, which a federal judge blocked. The host explains that Trump signed an executive order, not to legally invalidate the 14th Amendment (which an executive order cannot do), but to create a legal challenge that would reach the Supreme Court. The belief is that the six conservative justices on the court would rule in his favor.
The host states, 'what Trump did was he signed an executive order invalidating the 14th amendment... The point of the executive order was for this case to go to the Supreme Court because he believes by having six conservative justices on the Supreme Court that he can actually win this case.'
2Historical Roots of Arguments Against Birthright Citizenship
Legal scholars cited by the host indicate that the administration's arguments against birthright citizenship draw from an 1896 Supreme Court case (Plessy v. Ferguson) that established the 'separate but equal' doctrine. These arguments were originally made by Alexander Porter Morris, a Confederate officer and Louisiana attorney who advocated for legalized segregation.
The host states, 'Legal scholars say the administration is citing arguments from an 1896 Supreme Court case that established the separate but equal doctrine... These arguments were originally made by Alexander Porter Morris, a Confederate officer during the Civil War and a Louisiana attorney who advocated for legalized segregation.'
3The 14th Amendment's Original Intent and Conservative Reinterpretation
The host explains that Republicans and Trump are arguing the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause ('subject to the jurisdiction thereof') only applied to the children of formerly enslaved people of African descent, not to all individuals born in the U.S. This narrow interpretation is seen as a way to target undocumented workers and non-white immigrants.
The host states, 'Donald Trump is trying to suggest... that the 14th Amendment only applies to the children of enslaved people of African descent... This is all a matter of them targeting undocumented workers in this country.' Later, he adds, 'Their argument is that the 14th amendment ends right there... it only applies to the children and the descendants of the people who were enslaved.'
4Supreme Court's Disregard for Precedent and Political Alignment
Multiple guests and the host express a lack of trust in the Supreme Court to uphold precedent (stare decisis). They cite the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the ruling on presidential immunity as evidence that the court's conservative majority is politically motivated and willing to 'rewrite law' to align with a specific agenda, regardless of established legal principles.
The host states, 'this Supreme Court could very well declare that this portion of the 14th amendment is unconstitutional... this court in a case where they were not even the Mississippi folks were even asking for Roie Wade to be overturned. They went as far as to overturn Ro.' Yannick Gil adds, 'They will twist and interpret and redefine wellestablished precedents in ways that any first year law student would laugh at. We we it's it's it's not a legal question anymore. You cannot separate the politics from their analysis.'
Lessons
- Recognize that judicial appointments have long-term political consequences, as judges serve for life and can fundamentally alter the interpretation of constitutional law.
- Understand that the Supreme Court, despite claims of impartiality, is perceived by the host and guests as a political body whose decisions are influenced by the appointing administration's ideology.
- Engage in political processes, particularly voting, to influence who appoints federal judges and Supreme Court justices, as these appointments can determine the future of civil rights and constitutional interpretations.
Quotes
"The 14th amendment has applied to anybody actually born in this country. So conservatives, Republicans, MAGA, they have been opposing what they call anchor babies. And so what they want to suggest is that you get rid of this provision."
"You cannot separate this analysis of the 14th amendment law that has been established for well over 150 years and the current mess that exists within mega country. You see, it's primarily non-white people being born in the United States and they're scared."
"The reality is there really is no such thing as precedent because a Supreme Court can overrule a previous decision."
"This Supreme Court, this Supreme Court knows that they are the final arbiter. They don't give a damn about legal precedent."
"This is the first, you know, Supreme Court that we're seeing that is actively working to take rights away."
"Anyone who is deemed non-white will have their citizenship challenged because they don't want them to vote. They don't want them to be part of our electoral process."
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes
Major SCOTUS "Birthright Citizenship" Case, and Charlie Kirk Murder Trial Bullet Questions
"Megyn Kelly and legal experts dissect the Supreme Court's oral arguments on birthright citizenship and break down new, potentially exculpatory evidence in the Charlie Kirk murder trial, including an 'inconclusive' bullet match and complex DNA findings."
HOT TOPICS | WARNING: Donald Trump's Iran War Chaos Has Hit the Point of No Return!
"Don Lemon delivers a scathing critique of Donald Trump's recent actions, framing them as desperate, unconstitutional attempts to consolidate power, undermine democracy, and distract from economic and foreign policy failures, all while questioning his mental stability."
SHOCK BREAKING: SHOCKED TRUMP STORMS OUT OF SUPREME COURT IN RAGE!
"This episode dissects Donald Trump's contentious Supreme Court appearance regarding birthright citizenship, the growing disillusionment of right-wing figures like Alex Jones with Trump, and the political fallout from Kristi Noem's husband's alleged cross-dressing scandal."
Trump RUSHES Election Scheme as Midterms HAUNT HIM
"The hosts and guest expose the SAVE Act as a deceptive voter suppression tactic, drawing a stark contrast between the protection of gun rights and the erosion of voting rights."