[Politics] How Trump is changing the constitution without going through the constitutional process?

This is being done through the interpretation of the words in the Constitution rather than changing the words in Constitution.

Now I must say this likely will be challenged in the supreme court, yet is there any doubt how this REPUBLICAN supreme Court will rule?

Trump just signed this CONSTITUTIONAL interpretation through executive order. Basically dictatorially.

It has no governor approval much less ¾ of the governors. It has no Congressional approval, much ⅔rds of Congress which is required by the Constitution.

I will only give the first few paragraphs of this interpretational law. The link is given to the online document.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: “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.” That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.

But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.

Now how soon will this supreme Court will delay on even hearing the objections? It's the law of the land until they do!

As usual with political posts this informational. I will delete comments that I believe are negative.

trollslayer · 46-50, M

With every law or amendment there are notes, opinions, and commentary from the lawmakers who wrote it. This one is no different and they were quite clear with their intent (the same argument the 2A defenders use).

So if you claim that had there been such thing as an “illegal” immigrant in 1870, they would have worded it different? Fair argument. But then it is also fair to claim that had machine guns and automatic guns been around in 1800, the 2nd amendment writers would have worded things differently.

If you want to end birthright citizenship, amend the constitution and protect the rights of those of us (most of us) who are citizens because we were born here.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@trollslayer problem here is this is a executive order. At no time in history was the constitution's amendments ment to be superceded by the president.

Congress yes. The supreme court yes. Through constitutional amendments by the way of Congress, the States governors and the president yes. Through a constitutional convention yes. Yet never solely by the president.

They were attempting to avoid a monarchy or dictator.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

Serious question.... can someone explain this to me:

The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

If you are on the territory of a sovereign nation, aren't you automatically subjected to it's laws (aka fall under there jurisdiction)?

I can think of people that have diplomatic immunity... but since we are targetting migrants, I don't think they fall under that category. If they aren't under the jurisdiction of the country that they are in, how do they break the law?

... maybe my interpretation is wrong here. So yeah. Help?