Supreme Court Blocks Federal Judges Ruling In Favor Of Birthright Citizenship.

[Foxfyre]

I don't know what this "under the jurisdiction clause" is. But isn't the entire nation under the jurisdiction of the Constitution? Now for those who know, what the 14th Amendment was all about was to give citizenship to freed negro slaves. Not let any foreigner come here, have a baby and have that baby be a U.S. citizen. Which by default would make the parents citizens as well. If only Lincoln hadn't been assassinated. Because his plan was to send most of the ex-slaves to Panama. And the 14th Amendment would never have existed.

That you don't know what the 'under jurisdiction' clause is says loudly you really don't have a clue what you're talking about now. To the founders it meant those who were in the country legally with the intention of being here indefinitely, i.e. naturalized citizens. The primary purpose was to grant full citizenship to the black people born here who had not had the privilege of full citizenship before.

It certainly did not intend to include political appointees/families from other countries, those legally here from other countries to do business or visiting, or migrants who thumb their noses at our immigration laws and sneak into or enter the country under false pretense/illegally, i.e. people who are citizens of/under the jurisdiction of other countries.

If SCOTUS goes by original intent of the 14th Amendment, anchor babies will become a thing of the past.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not entirely accurate.

A Federal Judge IS supposed to use the Constitution and all applicable laws in his or her rulings. However, that ruling applies ONLY to their jurisdiction.

That is a full stop right there.

Miller said it best. No President should have to get a green light from 700 judges in order to perform the duties he was elected to perform.

That too is a full stop.

As to the 14th Amendment, no President has the authority to alter or dismiss an Amendment to the Constitution. Not through EO, not through EA. In fact, the only authority a President has regarding the Constitution and the Amendments found in that Constitution is to sign legislation either removing it or adding an additional Amendment, or even altering an existing Amendment.

There is a fully outlined process for altering, making, or removing Amendments. None of them can be done unilaterally by ANY President, of ANY party.

Now, the SCOTUS Is going to rule on Birthright Citizenship in October, is the schedule that I heard. At that time, I fully expect a 9-0 ruling against Trump regarding the EA/EO on birthright Citizenship.

However, until they do, no lower court can stop Trump, nor should they be permitted to do so.

Stay in your lane.

Couple of points of correction.

#1 The SCOTUS next term starts in October, if a case get to them on appeal they will decide to take it (or not) and will schedule briefings, oral arguments, and then deliver a decision - likely not until June 2026.

#2 The court limited District Court Judges from limiting TRO's (Temporary Restraining Orders) on a national basis when the case before them is of limited scope. But BOTH Justices Kavanaugh and Sotomayor pointed out that the ruling does not prevent nationwide injunctions in the case of groups certified under Class Action requirements.

Such a Class Action status was requested within 2-hours of the SCOTUS decision and the hearing to certify (or not) is scheduled for Monday at 14:00. If the class is certified, then an injunction can be issued for the class. The attached documents include people from multiple states with children born after the date of the EO.

There are 4 requirements for Class Certification:
(1) Numerosity - a large number of people - check
(2) Commonality - common question of law to the class - check
(3) Typicality - the claims (and relief sought) must be typically applicable to those in the class (basically they all need the same relief - check
(4) Adequacy of representation - represented by a lawyer in good standing at the bar - check

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

There are 4 requirements for Class Certification:
(1) Numerosity - a large number of people - check
(2) Commonality - common question of law to the class - check
(3) Typicality - the claims (and relief sought) must be typically applicable to those in the class (basically they all need the same relief - check
(4) Adequacy of representation - represented by a lawyer in good standing at the bar - check

WW

Which is fine, and is the purpose of class action litigation.

If Trump's EO on Birthright citizenship affects a significant number of people, and they join a class action lawsuit that meets the above requirements, then it will be certified and can go forward.

I understand the Democrats' political motivation to want to circumvent all that by having a single unelected federal judge simply injoin any action of the president's that they do not like, but that has never been the intended purpose of the federal courts at the lowest level.

They are there to provide relief for parties with a legal reason to apply for that relief, not to make policy for the nation.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Which is fine, and is the purpose of class action litigation.

If Trump's EO on Birthright citizenship affects a significant number of people, and they join a class action lawsuit that meets the above requirements, then it will be certified and can go forward.

I understand the Democrats' political motivation to want to circumvent all that by having a single unelected federal judge simply injoin any action of the president's that they do not like, but that has never been the intended purpose of the federal courts at the lowest level.

They are there to provide relief for parties with a legal reason to apply for that relief, not to make policy for the nation.

"Not Like" isn't the basis for a legal challenge.

They have to present to the court the basis of the law and how the EO violates that law.

Take two examples:

#1 The GOP couldn't challenge Biden's Student Loan attempt because they didn't like it. They had to demonstrate to the court HOW Biden's attempt to use the HEROS Act for student loan relief exceeded the law. They did that and got an nationwide injunction. Biden then stopped Student Loan forgivemess under the HEROS Act, but continued to use the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program that WAS authorized by Congress.

#2 The DEMs couldn't challenge Trump's AEA attempt because they didn't like it. They had to demonstrate to the court HOW Trump's attempt to use the AEA exceeded the law. Congress clearly defined when the AEA powers would be available to the President (Declared Act of War which only Congress can do and invasion/incursion by the Foreign Nation/Government). Trump attempted to exceed his powers by using the AEA against a criminal organization which IS NOT in the law.

Those are two and I gave one of each for balance.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

"Not Like" isn't the basis for a legal challenge.

Its the motivation for them though. Peope decide if they like an action or not, and if not, THEN they look for a legal basis to challenge it.

They have to present to the court the basis of the law and how the EO violates that law.

Take two examples:

#1 The GOP couldn't challenge Biden's Student Loan attempt because they didn't like it. They had to demonstrate to the court HOW Biden's attempt to use the HEROS Act for student loan relief exceeded the law. They did that and got an nationwide injunction. Biden then stopped Student Loan forgivemess under the HEROS Act, but continued to use the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program that WAS authorized by Congress.

The groups that filed that case were not motivated by Constitutional purism. They didnt like what Biden did.

#2 The DEMs couldn't challenge Trump's AEA attempt because they didn't like it. They had to demonstrate to the court HOW Trump's attempt to use the AEA exceeded the law. Congress clearly defined when the AEA powers would be available to the President (Declared Act of War which only Congress can do and invasion/incursion by the Foreign Nation/Government). Trump attempted to exceed his powers by using the AEA against a criminal organization which IS NOT in the law.

The groups that filed that case were not motivated by Constitutional purism. They didnt like what Trump did.

Those are two and I gave one of each for balance.

WW

Well done. Good examples.

Any legal point can be argued by skilled lawyers, and in front of a carefully chosen judge, any legal point can be ruled on favorably.

No plaintifs in a lawsuit are neutral, and no judges are neutral. The most recent ruling only slightly reduces the efficacy of forum shopping.

If judges were neutral, we could not predict case outcomes based on the makeup of the court to which a given case is presented.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Its the motivation for them though. Peope decide if they like an action or not, and if not, THEN they look for a legal basis to challenge it.

Oh, I agree with motivation 100%.

However motivation isn't a legal filing. To get the court to take action you have to show a legal basis for the motion.

WW

 

[Montrovant]

True, but any action that Trump takes which is not liked by his political opponents can be brought before ANY federal jude anywhere in the country. If the judge has been carefully selected from among 677 district court judges, then the result desired by that political opponent is a near certainty.

So the bottom line is that if any presidential action is approved of by 676 disctrict court judges, but disapproved of by 1, it is liable to be "ruled unconstitional" by that single judge.

Because that federal judge was not granted the entire executive power of the United States government by the voters and the United States Constitution. The president has.

Because the president does not take random actions for no particular reason. The president acts in what he - as the sole executive power - believes is in the best interest of the nation. The default shouldn't be that he is in the wrong unless not a single one of 677 district court judges disapproves.

Why not have that judge rule an action unconstitutional, if he or she is convinced it is, then let the plaintifs take it to the appelate court, and if the appelate court agrees, then the USSC can hear the case and decide whether to issue a valid injunction?

I don't think the president should even respond to lower level suits. They are very costly to respond to. If they have merit, the judge can make his ruling and the plaintifs can go to the appelate court. That would be the place to spend tax money responding. Or even wait until the USSC takes the case.

Being allowed to vote for who will have the power of the executive vested in them is a constitutional right held by all citizens. To have the other party angrily go to unelected judges who are also angry about the election results and bring that executive power to a grinding halt with ruling after ruling violates my constitutional rights. I'm pro-democracy, not pro-judiacracy.

But broad powers of universal injuctions are not "required" every time a president from the opposing party wins an election. The Democrats just want to get them. Bad strategy for ever regaining power. Sometimes it is better to say, "we lost this one. Let's figure out why, so we can win the next one."

You have to think beyond Donald Trump. Your party may well win the next presidential election after Trump has had four years to appoint federal judges. Do you want your president to be able to act to undo all of the things that Trump is doing that you disagree with, or do you want your president tied up in endless low-level court cases?

Prior to this ruling, every time the president issued an executive order, a single district court judge believed they had the power to injoin it a moment later, so long as someone immediately filed a case requesting it. That's not exactly having to get permission, but it amounts to an instant veto by one of 677 unelected judges.

Any action Trump takes can STILL be brought before any of those federal judges in the same way. They just cannot issue nationwide injunctions the same as they had been. So the outcome can be the same, it will just take more cases.

I agree that judges are not granted executive power. They were, however, granted the power to rule on whether a law or government action violates the Constitution.

Regardless of whether or not a president does things randomly or for no particular reason (and presidents are people, perfectly capable of taking random actions for no particular reason), if the taken action is deemed to violate the Constitution, it should halt. That in no way means that the default is the president being in the wrong. In fact, it's the opposite; it requires a case be brought before a judge and ruled upon before any presidential action is ruled to be wrong.

Why not have the presidential action that is ruled unconstitutional halt until it goes through the appeals process, rather than allow that (potentially) unconstitutional action to continue? I am more concerned with constitutional rights than I am with maintaining executive power.

This only has to do with Trump inasmuch as the USSC ruling came based on a case involving his executive order. The same issue would occur should any administration commit an action deemed unconstitutional. That's not a nearly unusual enough occurrence, unfortunately.

I do understand there are potential problems involved with nationwide injunctions. I have no problem with them being limited when only involving violations of regulation or law, but when it comes to violating the constitution, I believe there should be a higher standard.

Oh, and 'my' party will never win a presidential election; I adhere to no particular party. I'm not worried about presidents being tied up in low level court cases. I'm worried about presidents, who already exercise more power than they should IMO, being able to violate the constitution in the same way, over and over, because rulings are deemed too limited in scope and the USSC takes time to hear cases.

I appreciate the cordial debate, it's sadly infrequent here on USMB. Thank you

 

[Seymour Flops]

Any action Trump takes can STILL be brought before any of those federal judges in the same way. They just cannot issue nationwide injunctions the same as they had been. So the outcome can be the same, it will just take more cases.

I agree that judges are not granted executive power. They were, however, granted the power to rule on whether a law or government action violates the Constitution.

Regardless of whether or not a president does things randomly or for no particular reason (and presidents are people, perfectly capable of taking random actions for no particular reason), if the taken action is deemed to violate the Constitution, it should halt. That in no way means that the default is the president being in the wrong. In fact, it's the opposite; it requires a case be brought before a judge and ruled upon before any presidential action is ruled to be wrong.

Why not have the presidential action that is ruled unconstitutional halt until it goes through the appeals process, rather than allow that (potentially) unconstitutional action to continue? I am more concerned with constitutional rights than I am with maintaining executive power.

This only has to do with Trump inasmuch as the USSC ruling came based on a case involving his executive order. The same issue would occur should any administration commit an action deemed unconstitutional. That's not a nearly unusual enough occurrence, unfortunately.

I do understand there are potential problems involved with nationwide injunctions. I have no problem with them being limited when only involving violations of regulation or law, but when it comes to violating the constitution, I believe there should be a higher standard.

Oh, and 'my' party will never win a presidential election; I adhere to no particular party. I'm not worried about presidents being tied up in low level court cases. I'm worried about presidents, who already exercise more power than they should IMO, being able to violate the constitution in the same way, over and over, because rulings are deemed too limited in scope and the USSC takes time to hear cases.

I promise that I read all of this. Read it twice in fact. I feel that I already responded to most of it. But I will single out three items:

Regardless of whether or not a president does things randomly or for no particular reason (and presidents are people, perfectly capable of taking random actions for no particular reason), if the taken action is deemed to violate the Constitution, it should halt.

I would point out that federal judges are also people, perfectly capable of taking random actions for no particular reasons. Also, more importantly, perfectly capable of taking actions for partisan political reasons. That argues against the kind of passive obedience that the USSC just ruled the president is not required to show to lower federal court judges - 677 of them.

I'll risk sounding like a rhetoric Nazi to note your use of the passive voice, "if the taken action is deemed to violate . . . " The passive voice seeming to imply that there is something inherent in the action that violates the Constitution, while the more accurate "If a federal judge rules that the taken action violates the Constitution" would show such a ruling for what it is: one person disagreeing with another.

Obviously, Donald Trump could not function as a human being, much less as president, if he halted any action that other people disagree with.

That in no way means that the default is the president being in the wrong. In fact, it's the opposite; it requires a case be brought before a judge and ruled upon before any presidential action is ruled to be wrong.

I concede that point. Well stated.

This:

I agree that judges are not granted executive power. They were, however, granted the power to rule on whether a law or government action violates the Constitution.

I have to take issue with. First for the use of the passive voice. Who granted the courts the power to rule on whether a law or government action violates the Constitution? Is there any answer besides "the courts?" It is not explicit in the U.S. Constitution.

In Marbury v. Madison, the USSC tacitly gave itself the power of judicial review over laws, but ruled nothing about presidential actions. Maybe there was a ruling in which the court gave itself power of review over executive actions. I haven't heard of that case, but Marbury v. Madison is much discussed.

The courts power to overturn laws as unconstitutional was never seriously questioned, so it stands. Universal Injunctions have been debated about and objected to for as long as I remember. I'm very surprised this is the first time the USSC ruled on them.

I appreciate the cordial debate, it's sadly infrequent here on USMB. Thank you

I thank you also. I enjoy posters who make me think.

 

[Unkotare]

...anchor babies will become a thing of the past.

No such thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

No such thing.

Well most Americans know there is such a thing as anchor babies. Denying it just because you want tens of millions of illegal migrants to come here and stay here doesn't change that.

This Colorado group--Colorado is a deep blue state by the way--gets it absolutely right:

"Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term). . ."

And hopefully the law can be made clear as to the original intent of the "under the jurisdiction' phrase of the 14th amendment.

". .The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby. . . "

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO Report - Concerned Americans, our Constitution, our Independent Republic | immigration, sustainability, western civilization, globalism, demographics, great replacement

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO Report - Concerned Americans, our Constitution, our Independent Republic | immigration, sustainability, western civilization, globalism, demographics, great replacement

www.cairco.org

 

[Unkotare]

Well most Americans know there is such a thing as anchor babies. ...

Nope.

 

[Unkotare]

... just because you want tens of millions of illegal migrants to come here and stay here ...

I never said that.

 

[Highlight]

I'll respond to it, thanks for point it out:




The last sentence of your quote seems to weaken your argument rather than supporting it.

I asked AI whether a local police officer has a duty to uphold the Constitution:

AI Overview

Yes, local law enforcement, like all public officials, have a sworn duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution. This duty is typically formalized through an oath of office where they pledge to support and defend the Constitution. While their primary focus is enforcing laws within their jurisdiction, this enforcement must be done in a manner consistent with constitutional principles.

I asked the same question about a public school teacher, which is my profession:

AI Overview

In public schools in the United States, teachers, as government actors, are obligated to uphold and act in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, which includes respecting students' constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and due process
.
Correct answers, but neither of those professions have the power to stop the President of the United States from taking executive actions.

A low-level federal judge can decide if a local law enforcement officer's or a public school teacher's actions are unconstitutional, but now the rule is that they cannot apply that to all law enforcement officers or all teachers in the country. I believe they could rule that all such actions would be unconstitutional, but they cannot enjoin all officers, teachers, governors, lawmakers, all over from that actions.

How could an executive function if it required permission from each of the 800 federal judges in the United States?

Who cares what a police officer has to do with the Constitution. I am talking about the authority of Federal Judges when it comes to deciding a matter of the Constitution. Which is supposed to apply to ALL states. Because if something goes against the Constitution in Maine, it is also against the Constitution in Hawaii.

 

[Highlight]

That you don't know what the 'under jurisdiction' clause is says loudly you really don't have a clue what you're talking about now. To the founders it meant those who were in the country legally with the intention of being here indefinitely, i.e. naturalized citizens. The primary purpose was to grant full citizenship to the black people born here who had not had the privilege of full citizenship before.

It certainly did not intend to include political appointees/families from other countries, those legally here from other countries to do business or visiting, or migrants who thumb their noses at our immigration laws and sneak into or enter the country under false pretense/illegally, i.e. people who are citizens of/under the jurisdiction of other countries.

If SCOTUS goes by original intent of the 14th Amendment, anchor babies will become a thing of the past.

So I didn't read the entire 14th amendment. Big deal. Also, just so you know, I am against illegal invaders and their anchor babies. But all that aside, wouldn't anybody who is even in this country illegally be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government? After all, in our country, only our government has authority. But I'll take that a step further. The Constitution is something written by and for the American People. Any rights or protections given to the American people through it shouldn't apply to those in this country illegally. That also means no food stamps or medical care.

 

[Unkotare]

So I didn't read the entire 14th amendment. Big deal. ...

 

[Unkotare]

... and their anchor babies. ...

There's no such thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

So I didn't read the entire 14th amendment. Big deal. Also, just so you know, I am against illegal invaders and their anchor babies. But all that aside, wouldn't anybody who is even in this country illegally be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government? After all, in our country, only our government has authority. But I'll take that a step further. The Constitution is something written by and for the American People. Any rights or protections given to the American people through it shouldn't apply to those in this country illegally. That also means no food stamps or medical care.

It should also apply to any offspring born to people who are not citizens. Certainly the ambassadors and their staffs assigned to be here, those here on business, tourists and visiting family of citizens who come here are all subject to our laws and are required to obey them. But they are citizens of, under the jurisdiction of, whatever country they came from. Should they give birth while they are here, their children are considered to be citizens of wherever they came from.

Certainly it was never intended for people to come here under false pretenses, who sneak into the country or otherwise come illegally to be able to stay here indefinitely if they have an anchor baby here.

The 'under the jurisdiction' phrase had a meaning to those who wrote it. I hope and pray SCOTUS will also interpret it to be what those who wrote it intended.

By the way, you don't have to read the entire 14th Amendment to see the 'under the jurisdiction of' phrase that is in the first sentence of that amendment.

 

[Highlight]

It should also apply to any offspring born to people who are not citizens. Certainly the ambassadors and their staffs assigned to be here, those here on business, tourists and visiting family of citizens who come here are all subject to our laws and are required to obey them. But they are citizens of, under the jurisdiction of, whatever country they came from. Should they give birth while they are here, their children are considered to be citizens of wherever they came from.

Certainly it was never intended for people to come here under false pretenses, who sneak into the country or otherwise come illegally to be able to stay here indefinitely if they have an anchor baby here.

The 'under the jurisdiction' phrase had a meaning to those who wrote it. I hope and pray SCOTUS will also interpret it to be what those who wrote it intended.

By the way, you don't have to read the entire 14th Amendment to see the 'under the jurisdiction of' phrase that is in the first sentence of that amendment.

Your reply doesn't make sense. Of course, while people from other countries are in this country, they are subject to our laws. That should go without saying. Next, unfortunately, things don't work the way you say for foreign children born here.. For any foreign person visiting this country legally, if they give birth, the child is usually given dual citizenship. Meaning that they are citizens of this country and whatever country the mother was from.

 

[Orangecat]

Just because weirdos try and change meanings....

Like "man" and "woman"?

 

[Foxfyre]

Your reply doesn't make sense. Of course, while people from other countries are in this country, they are subject to our laws. That should go without saying. Next, unfortunately, things don't work the way you say for foreign children born here.. For any foreign person visiting this country legally, if they give birth, the child is usually given dual citizenship. Meaning that they are citizens of this country and whatever country the mother was from.

I'll stand by my posts and the links and arguments to support them. You, who admits he didn't even read the 14th Amendment, can continue to whistle in the wind and pretend you have any basis for what you are arguing but won't admit there is any other possible valid argument but yours.

But do have a lovely evening.