Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
  • Submissions
  • The Roundtable
  • Full Issues
  • Sponsors
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs
    • Member Portal >
      • Directory
      • Forms
      • Graphics
      • Minutes
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
  • Submissions
  • The Roundtable
  • Full Issues
  • Sponsors
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs
    • Member Portal >
      • Directory
      • Forms
      • Graphics
      • Minutes

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Empty Threats: Assessing the Legality of Donald Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

11/30/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Omar Khoury
Omar Khoury is the Editor-in-Chief of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal and a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences studying Modern Middle Eastern Studies and English.

In a highly controversial and televised interview, President Donald Trump told the news and information website Axios that he intends to revoke the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution by executive order. Such a move warrants comprehensive scrutiny on the legality of this intended executive order and on the veracity of the legal arguments invoked to justify it.
​
Manifesting itself as the Citizenship Clause, the 14th Amendment states that “[a]ll 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.” Adopted in 1868, the Amendment and the Clause signified a reversal of the notorious Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, in which the United States Supreme Court declared African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States. [1]
Exactly 150 years later, President Trump conveyed his intentions to invalidate this particular clause of the 14th Amendment. [2] In the interview, Trump argued that rescinding this clause could be done by executive order and alleged that the United States of America is the “only country in the world” with birthright citizenship. To address the second point, more than 30 countries, most of which are in the Western Hemisphere and include Mexico and Canada, practice conferring citizenship upon birth in what is known as jus soli. [3]

With regards to Mr. Trump’s primary modus arguendi, he emphatically endorsed his constitutional right to authorize executive orders and directives to override the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately for the President, only a few constitutional scholars, such as John Eastman, believe he is constitutionally endowed to do so. With reference to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” Mr. Eastman maintains that the Amendment applies to people with full and complete political allegiance to the US (namely green card holders and citizens).

However, in 1898, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, held explicitly that the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to exclude (besides Native Americans born on tribal land) two groups and two groups only: children of foreign diplomats and children of enemy occupiers. [4] Perhaps the latter category of exclusions is the impetus for Mr. Trump’s recent authorization for increased military presence at the Southern border to stop a migrant caravan—an evident characterization of the migrants as “enemy occupiers.” [5] After all, Mr. Trump did characterize the recent migrant caravan as an “assault on our country” at an October 22nd rally in Texas for Ted Cruz.  

Regardless of the reason behind the military deployment, the question still remains as to the legality of Mr. Trump’s claim that he can override the 14th Amendment by way of executive order. Executive orders are constitutionally enfranchised directives a sitting president may issue in order to manage or enforce the operations of the federal government. [6] Similar to legislative statutes and governmental regulations, executive orders are not exempt from judicial review and can be overturned if the order is determined to lack constitutional support. [7]

With Mr. Trump’s latest flex of political prowess, he may have exposed his own misunderstanding and miscomprehension of the legal processes he is constitutionally mandated to support and defend. Any executive order that challenges the authority of the 14th amendment would almost certainly be met with immediate legal challenges in a court of law.

Regardless of the president’s intentions, he cannot repeal any part the Constitution. Such an act could only come through a constitutional amendment that would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the states. With Congress now divided between a Democrat-controlled House and a Republican-majority Senate, the effort to erase the clause is unlikely to clear these hurdles. [8]

The only foreseeable way that Mr. Trump’s executive order will have its intended impact is if the order is legally challenged and then successfully appealed at the Supreme Court of the United States, the nation’s highest court. Given the recent, albeit controversial, appointment of Brett Kavanaugh as an Associate Justice, the ideological make-up of the Court is decidedly conservative. [9] Thus, if the Supreme Court Justices vote along ideological lines, Mr. Trump’s self-boasted conservatism would certainly make it seem more likely than not that the conservative Justices would support the legality of the executive order in favor of redefining the birthright citizenship clause.

Unfortunately, given the divisive controversy that would arise from such a decision, the Supreme Court Justices, taking into consideration the public perception of the Court’s legitimacy, would undoubtedly involve other factors besides ideological and party loyalty in adjudicating their respective decisions.

Thus, Mr. Trump’s threat of governmental involvement by way of executive order is poised to face a daunting uphill battle. Of course, this conclusion rests on the underlying assumptions that the legislative and judicial systems of the United States remain separate—a political concept which has recently been called into question following the national exacerbation of party politics. But, giving the benefit of the doubt to the natural, uncorrupted course of American politics and governance, Mr. Trump’s threat is as empty as his capacity to understand the Constitution, which he has nonetheless sworn to support and defend. 
​


References:

[1] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)

[2] Jonathan Swan, and Stef Kight. 2018. "Exclusive: Trump Targeting Birthright Citizenship With Executive Order". Axios. Accessed November 10 2018. https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html.

[3] Vincent, Andrew. Nationalism and Particularity. Cambridge University Press.

[4] "Can Trump End Birthright Citizenship? We Asked 10 Legal Experts.". 2018. Vox. Accessed November 10 2018. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/30/18042638/trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-legal-experts.

[5] Copp, Tara, 2018. "2,100 Mostly Unarmed Guard Troops On Border As Trump Vows To Send More To Stop Migrant Caravan". Military Times. Accessed November 10 2018. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/10/23/2000-unarmed-guard-troops-on-border-as-trump-vows-to-send-more-to-stop-migrant-caravan/.


[6] John Contrubis 1999. Executive Orders and Proclamations, CRS Report for Congress #95-722A. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Orders_and_Proclamations#1

[7] Rebecca M. Patton, MSN, RN, CNOR, FAAN; Margarete L. Zalon, PhD, RN, ACNS-BC, FAAN; Ruth Ludwick, PhD, RN-BC, CNS, FAAN, 2014. Nurses Making Policy: From Bedside to Boardroom. Springer Publishing Company. p. 94. ISBN 978-0-8261-9892-1.

[8] Omar Jadwat, 2018. "No, Mr. President. You Can’t Change The Constitution By Executive Order". 2018. American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed November 11 2018. https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/road-citizenship/no-mr-president-you-cant-change-constitution-executive-order.

[9] Alvin Chang, 2018. "Brett Kavanaugh And The Supreme Court’s Drastic Shift To The Right, Cartoonsplained". Vox. Accessed November 12 2018. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/9/17537808/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-right-cartoon.

Photo Credit: Unsplash: Luke Stackpoole https://unsplash.com/photos/-gy4s9SQ1RI

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Abortion
    ACA
    ACLU
    Alana Mattei
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Kysar
    Anna Schwartz
    Arrest
    Artificial Intelligence
    Ashley Kim
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Biotechnology
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Civil Rights
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Congress
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    Data
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Due Process
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Environment
    EPA
    FCC
    FISA
    Flint
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
    Frank Geng
    Freedom Of Speech
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Gun Control
    Habib Olapade
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Implied Powers
    Inequality
    Internet Privacy
    Interviews
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Jury Nullification
    Justin Yang
    Katie Kaufman
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Matthew Caulfield
    Media
    Michael Keshmiri
    Minimum Age
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicole Greenstein
    Obamacare
    Omar Khoury
    Opioid Crisis
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pennsylvania
    Pennsylvania Law
    Pharmaceuticals
    Pheby Liu
    Philadelphia Law
    Police
    Presidential Powers
    Public Education
    Public Heatlh
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Renewable Energy
    Sam Nadler
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Second Amendment
    Shannon Alvino
    Siddarth Sethi
    Social Media
    State Law
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Sue And Settle
    Supreme Court
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Technology
    Telecommunications
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Transgender Rights
    Trump
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Unfiled
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​