I get that . . . and there's a plethora of legislators and legal scholars who agree with that line of thinking. However, I would say that there are several avenues to get to a solution.
(1) Keep in mind, the job of the executive is to execute the law of the land, as best they understand it to be in light of Supreme Court precedent. Usually, questions around how to execute on a law deals with a new law and everyone walks around it gingerly. However, it is just as legitimate for the executive to examine old laws and view whether or not what has been done fully executes the letter of the law, or somehow "cheats" the People out of part of what the law states/protects/provides/etc. In this case, folks are stirred up simply because the law Trump is planning on issuing an EO about happens to be an 1866 amendment--the 14A--and some folks seem to think that the way it has been understood and executed is somehow sacrosanct. It is not, and a wrong/incomplete reading of even an old law is just as needful of being newly executed as a new law. So, by preparing an EO and fully executing on his reading of the conjunctive phrase in the 14A is completely lawful so long as his EO doesn't run afoul of Supreme Court precedent. It remains to be seen how deep Trump will bite this apple; however, what is clear is that Wong Kim Ark does NOT answer the question of what the 14A means with respect to the citizenship of a child born here of illegal aliens. That question was NOT before the Court.
(2) It's also true that this new reading regarding the 14A can be accomplished by a Congressional law that accomplishes what Section 5 of that amendment states--"enforcing, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." So, Paul Ryan and Charles Grassley are correct in regard to the fact that Congress CAN address this issue and correct it. However, they are incorrect in thinking that this is the ONLY way the problem may be addressed.
(3) It is also the case that Congress can pass an amendment for ratification that seeks to address this situation of Birth Tourism or Anchor Babies. In fact, this option may very well be what happens . . . but ONLY because either (1) or (2) above has been attempted and subsequently shot down in a legal challenge that winds up in the Supreme Court, assuming the Court rejects the newly-refined reading. If the Court would concur with DJT's newly-refined reading of the 14A, then it can be said that DJT was correct in (1) above, or (2) above, assuming the Congress acts under Section 5.
(4) It is also the case that a Convention of States can be started and over the course of said convention, an amendment can be prepared and then submitted to the several States for ratification. Just because this hasn't yet been attempted doesn't mean it is not in our future. Stand by for more!
Last edited:
So really, he no longer has any skin in this game.
