Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

[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.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

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?

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@Kwek00 there's going to be a lot of arguments over this. There's many ways to migrate.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@DeWayfarer Still... who in the country doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of that countries laws? ... Like I said, the only example that I can give you are people that have diplomatic immunity. But legal, illegal ... it really doesn't matter. The moment you are on a sovereign's nations' soil you fall under their laws. If you commit a crime, that country that you commited the crime in will judge you. If you don't fall under their jurisdiction, then you shouldn't abide by their laws. No country works like that. It's one of the prime tasks of the governement, to enforce the laws.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@Kwek00 everything is dependent on context on this executive order.

I admit I am not a lawyer. Yet I do know you have to keep everything in context.

You can't piece mill such orders.
You'll need to read the whole order to see the whole context.

Why I gave the link.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@Kwek00 Actually, no. There are many exceptions to being on a sovereign nation's territory and being under their jurisdiction. Examples come to mind of military and diplomatic travelers. As for people who have entered the country, unknown to the country and without a visa, I think it is a legitimate question.

Think in terms of basic business contract law. How can one party be obligated to provide something to the second party if the first party does not yet even know the second party exists?? It doesn't make sense.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@sarabee1995 I already mentioned diplomatic immunity. When it comes to the militairy, they probably fall under that statute.

As for people who have entered the country, unknown to the country and without a visa, I think it is a legitimate question.

The fact that these people are considered to be "illegale" in the country, means that they fall under the countries jurisdiction. 🤷‍♂ I don't get how anyone can make this argument. Once an ilegale person gets caught, they are judged and treated according to the law of the land.

There is another example I can name, after thinking about it. And that's like the verdict of being an outlaw. Where a territory brands someone "vogelvrij" (as they say in dutch), and where the law has no effect on you BUT you also don't fall under the protectionso of the law. Which can end up with the person condamned being murdered without consequences for those that commit the act.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@sarabee1995

Each of these specialized missions and offices is established under an agreement between the United States and the country concerned. The legal status of Office of Defense Cooperation and mission personnel varies from country to country, and their criminal jurisdiction status is subject to the agreements with the
countries concerned.
In general, personnel receive the diplomatic privileges of the embassy, of which by agreement they are a part; the United States in many cases has exclusive jurisdiction over mission personnel under country agreements. Members of military missions and Office of Defense Cooperation groups should consult their commanding officers as to their exact legal status in the country in which they are assigned.
- Page 29

A sovereign nation has the right to exercise jurisdiction over persons in its territory. All persons in a country - including military personnel - unless granted diplomatic or other legal immunity, are subject to that country's laws.
- Page 35

SOURCE: https://www.marines.mil/portals/1/Publications/NAVMC%202658.pdf

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@DeWayfarer You are aware you posted the executive order in the original post? ... I've read it. It all hedges on that one statement. But the longer I think about it, the more insane it gets. If you don't have that legal or diplomatic immunity, you fall under the jurisdiction of that country. Unless we go back to a time where we start declaring people outside the law.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@Kwek00 No I didn't post the total executive order. And why I said...

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

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@DeWayfarer You literally posted a link, the content of that link says: "Executive order".

You are aware that I'm able to click on a link, when someone provides me one.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@Kwek00 no I am not aware of that. Can you not copy and paste?

I'm not being rude. I do understand some have disabilities. And I am sorry if that is the case.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@Kwek00 In the latter case I am including a screen shot of section 4 the definitions section. What I posted was only a portion of the first section of 4 sections.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@DeWayfarer

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

It's your post. Why would I read your excerpt, when you provide me with the entire page?
It leads to a whitehouse page, apperently run by CNN, that lists (I hope) the entire executive order. Considering that it's called "executive order". But with CNN, you are never sure.

And the entire argument hedges on that jurisdiction clause.
But after an evening of digging, that clause has already been challenged. Several times. The most important case being "United States vs Wong Kim Ark" (1898). And without even knowing anything about this, the supreme court says the exact same thing that I say to SaraB. If the country that you are in can put you into jail (legally) then you fall under it's laws. And they make 2 exceptions:

"The Fourteen Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory . . . . The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate [while in the United States and] . . . 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;' and his child . . . 'is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'"

****

"To hold that the Fourteen Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States."

SOURCE: https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html#:~:text=%22The%20Fourteen%20Amendment%20affirms%20the,itself)%20of%20children%20of%20foreign

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@Kwek00 because it's too long see the screenshot of section 4!

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@DeWayfarer I read it. It doesn't matter. It doesn't make the claim any more viable. Without that jurisdiction clause, the argument is void. And that interpretation makes 0 sense, unless we are going back to some midieval practise or the wild west.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@Kwek00 I did say that it's being taken to the supreme court.

This supreme Court however is unpredictable under normal procedures.

They throughout 50 years of precedence before.

Might as well be the wild west.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@Kwek00 Yes, I've operated in several countries under different "Status of Forces Agreements" and they always state whether or not we are subject to local jurisdiction (almost always not).

As for a person being deemed automatically under a nations jurisdiction just because that nation categorizes anyone in their situation to be automatically under an illegal status, THAT doesn't make sense to me.

Simply stepping foot in the Netherlands from fill-in-the-blank-third-world-country bestows upon me great advantages over my countrymen, if I can retain residency in the Netherlands. Now, if I broke into the Netherlands without the benefit of a visa or other legal form of entry, should I be allowed to insist you take care of me? Am I under your jurisdiction or am I simply breaking and entering and in need of removal? That is the question.

Honestly, I can see both sides on this one. I don't think it is right for someone to break in and then by virtue of them having committed a crime their offspring is rewarded. That makes little sense to me. As to the meaning and original intent of the Statute, that is for the court to decide.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@DeWayfarer

They threw out 50 years of precedence before ...

I assume you are talking about Roe v Wade. Let's all remember that Ginsberg, herself, warned Democrats more than once that Roe was wrongly/weakly decided and should be shored up legislatively. No one listened to her, nothing was done. So when Roe collapsed as she knew it would abortion rights collapsed with it. Anyone reading the Roe decision with an open eye to what the Constitution actually says would agree with Justice Ginsberg that it was weak and needed help.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@sarabee1995 beside the point. It happened.

Precedence has no standing with this SCOTUS.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@DeWayfarer Yes, it was predicted to happen by the chief icon of women's rights in her cautionary tale and then it happened just as she said it would.

A precedent that is wrongly decided (as Roe very clearly was) is no precedent. Congress needed to do its job, but shirked it's responsibility as it so often does. THAT is the learning that should come out of Roe. Not that a court looked at a wrongly decided precedent and corrected the error.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@sarabee1995 there has been multiple rulings in favor of rvw. Precedence DOES NOT MATTER!

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@sarabee1995 That you even entertain this, is beyond me.

Simply stepping foot in the Netherlands from fill-in-the-blank-third-world-country bestows upon me great advantages over my countrymen, if I can retain residency in the Netherlands. Now, if I broke into the Netherlands without the benefit of a visa or other legal form of entry, should I be allowed to insist you take care of me? Am I under your jurisdiction or am I simply breaking and entering and in need of removal? That is the question.

The answer to the question is YES. People on the soil of the Netherlands, are protected AND judged according the law of the land. The only diffrence, is that they are not citizens of the country, that's it. Certain rules and priveleges are only given to citizens BUT the constitution protects all that reside on the land. Because the governement of the Netherlands has jurisdiction over that land and those that reside on it.

And when it comes to countries that fall in the bracket of the Schengen countries, you don't even have to make your presence known. If you as a US citizen, come into Spain. You can travel to any Schengen country without EVER making a notice to that countries governement that you reside on the land. However, if the Netherlands catches you doing something illegale on their soil, you will be judged according to the dutch laws. And the dutch governement will protect your legal rights by offering to present a lawyer for you if you aren't able too, no matter who you are or what you have done.

Which is the case btw, all around the world in every country that has a liberal democratic system (just like the US). Pretending that this is somehow diffrent in 2025 because Donald Trumps' team said so, makes no sense.

Think in terms of basic business contract law. How can one party be obligated to provide something to the second party if the first party does not yet even know the second party exists?? It doesn't make sense.

In a hypothetical situation, where a father and mother living in some remote part of the US have a child. If they choose to never write the child into the American register, and create a blind spot for the US governement. Then they hide the child and abuse it for 30 years. When the US governement finally figures out the situation that is going on, the child will be protected by the US governement, even if it's not registered as a citizen. Because the constitution isn't only applicable to citizens, its the law of the land for citizens and non-citizens alike. How governements and sovereignity works, is not the same how the free market works.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@Kwek00 I understand what you are saying. I am surprised that the Netherlands do not have any kind of non-citizen, legal resident status. Almost all countries do.

In any case, what we are discussing is the bestowing of citizenship upon a person who was born on US soil in contravention of US law with, in most cases, the intent of the undocumented parent of circumventing US law.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@sarabee1995 The case we are discussing is literally put in the constitution. It's really simple, you get born on US soil which automatically means you fall under the US jurisprudence (UNLESS, you have some kind of immunity, like mentioned earlier, but this never applies to normal migrants - legal or illegale). Therefore, they are citiizens in the US.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's as literal as it gets in the constitution. Not to mention that it got challenged/tested several times by similair figures, and all of these claims got thrown out by the supreme court. But because the white house is now the home of a bunch of authoritarian xenophobes, language needs to be questioned and loopholes need to be exploited. And if there isn't a loophole they'll create one out of thin air. Do you know why Sara? because these people don't give an F about your constitution. They didn't do it during their last term, they didn't do it during their speeches, and they are not doing it now. And people that go: "yeah, maybe there are 2 sides to this", enable these kinds of figures to just push harder.