Our U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing Trump v. Barbara, a case which challenges President Trump’s executive order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”. Factually speaking, unwritten federal policy, and only unwritten federal policy, not statutory law, now recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on American soil, as natural-born citizens of the U.S. See: 8 U.S. Code § 1401(a), which begins:
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Unfortunately, the myth that the majority S.C. opinion in Wong Kim Ark recognized U.S. natural-born birthright citizenship among the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals is still accepted as fact, when the truth is, the question addressed by the Court in Wong did not involve a child born on American soil to parents who were illegal entrant foreign nationals, and who violated U.S. law upon entering the U.S. How could the court have taken up the question, and offered and opinion to such a question when the Fourteenth Amendment was being framed legal entry of foreign nationals into the United States was essentially governed by state laws and largely unrestricted?
The fact is, no S.C. opinion, nor have the American people or their representatives, knowingly, willing and intentionally, have granted U.S. birthright citizenship to offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.
Supreme Court members, by the terms of our Constitution, do not have constitutional authority to create a new identifiable group of persons bestowed with the priceless privilege of natural born U.S. citizenship. That authority, which involves a political matter and decision, has rightfully been placed in the people's hands under Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, or in the hands of the people's elected representatives, which was previously exercised by Congress on June 2, 1924, the Snyder Act, creating a new category of natural born U.S. citizenship for Indians who were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
Also see the Hawaiian Organic Act of 1900, extending U.S. birthright citizenship to the Citizens of Hawaii; the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917, giving Puerto Ricans U.S. statutory birthright citizenship; and in 1940, Congress codified many previous laws and explicitly included persons born in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam as U.S. citizens at birth.
It seems self-evident that our Supreme Court must apply the thinking in Luther v. Borden (1849) to Trump v. Barbara and acknowledge that a power to decide what turns out to be a political question creating a new identifiable group of persons as natural-born U.S. citizens, is not within the judiciaries delegated authority, and must be decide by the people themselves, under Article V, by a constitutional amendment, or by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and/or President. As such, Trump's E.O. “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” appears to be within the Presidents' Article 2, policy making decision power. Should Congress object to Trump’s E.O., Congress is vested with power, under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, to adopt appropriate legislation enforcing the amendment.
For our Supreme Court members to not follow Luther v. Borden and create, by its Trump v. Barbara opinion, a new group of identifiable persons as natural-born U.S. citizens, would not only usurp legislative authority, ignore our system’s separation of powers, but likewise subjugate the very reason for having elections, during which time the people have a say in setting new public policy by whom they elect, and did so when electing Donald J. Trump as their president.
Let us not forget a warning succinctly stated by James Madison:
”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [e.g., our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
JWK
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Unfortunately, the myth that the majority S.C. opinion in Wong Kim Ark recognized U.S. natural-born birthright citizenship among the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals is still accepted as fact, when the truth is, the question addressed by the Court in Wong did not involve a child born on American soil to parents who were illegal entrant foreign nationals, and who violated U.S. law upon entering the U.S. How could the court have taken up the question, and offered and opinion to such a question when the Fourteenth Amendment was being framed legal entry of foreign nationals into the United States was essentially governed by state laws and largely unrestricted?
The fact is, no S.C. opinion, nor have the American people or their representatives, knowingly, willing and intentionally, have granted U.S. birthright citizenship to offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.
Supreme Court members, by the terms of our Constitution, do not have constitutional authority to create a new identifiable group of persons bestowed with the priceless privilege of natural born U.S. citizenship. That authority, which involves a political matter and decision, has rightfully been placed in the people's hands under Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process, or in the hands of the people's elected representatives, which was previously exercised by Congress on June 2, 1924, the Snyder Act, creating a new category of natural born U.S. citizenship for Indians who were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
Also see the Hawaiian Organic Act of 1900, extending U.S. birthright citizenship to the Citizens of Hawaii; the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917, giving Puerto Ricans U.S. statutory birthright citizenship; and in 1940, Congress codified many previous laws and explicitly included persons born in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam as U.S. citizens at birth.
It seems self-evident that our Supreme Court must apply the thinking in Luther v. Borden (1849) to Trump v. Barbara and acknowledge that a power to decide what turns out to be a political question creating a new identifiable group of persons as natural-born U.S. citizens, is not within the judiciaries delegated authority, and must be decide by the people themselves, under Article V, by a constitutional amendment, or by the people’s elected representatives . . . their Legislature and/or President. As such, Trump's E.O. “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” appears to be within the Presidents' Article 2, policy making decision power. Should Congress object to Trump’s E.O., Congress is vested with power, under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, to adopt appropriate legislation enforcing the amendment.
For our Supreme Court members to not follow Luther v. Borden and create, by its Trump v. Barbara opinion, a new group of identifiable persons as natural-born U.S. citizens, would not only usurp legislative authority, ignore our system’s separation of powers, but likewise subjugate the very reason for having elections, during which time the people have a say in setting new public policy by whom they elect, and did so when electing Donald J. Trump as their president.
Let us not forget a warning succinctly stated by James Madison:
”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [e.g., our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
JWK
