“The courts will decide it regardless of whether Congress passes a law or the President issues an EO. Both actions will be challenged legally and the Courts must adjudicate the constitutionality of the edict/laws. It may require a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. Until then, the current practice will continue. “
The 14th amendment is clear. The author of the citizenship clause was painfully clear. The Constitution doesn’t need ‘interpretation’, it needs to be farking followed. Everyone in the employ of the fed govt has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That’s what the very stable genius PDJT is doing...He’s the chief executive and he’s going to enforce the law. Not some ahole courts interpretation of it.
You are wrong. The courts will be involved whether you like it or not. Do you really think that Trump’s order will not be challenged in the courts? Or that an injunction will not be issued by some lower court federal judge like what happened with DACA, the so-called Muslim travel ban, etc.?
As I said, Trump’s action would be a good first step, but a long fight is ahead, especially if the Dems gain control of the House.
It isn’t clear at all to me that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” doesn’t include the children of at least some non-citizens. The “author” doesn’t get to decide what it means. The citizenship clause isn’t the law because Senator Howard said so. It is the law because Congress voted to propose it and the state legislatures voted to ratify it. The question—which would be answered by a court—is what did THEY think it meant when they voted to propose and ratify it.