Tag Archives: 14th Amendment

Legal scholars got this one right

A federal judge in Washington state has become the latest Man in the Moment by issuing a temporary halt to Donald Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship for anyone born in the United States of America.

I agree with U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan. He called Trump’s order “blatantly unconstititutional.”

But hold on! He’s getting plenty of push back from conservative legal experts who are backing Trump’s decision.

One of them is Hans Von Spakovsky, who works for the Heritage Foundation. He said: “The 14th Amendment has two key clauses in it. One, you have to be born in the United States, but you also have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All those who push birthright citizenship just point to that first phrase and ignore the second,” he said. “I’ve done a lot of research on this. I’ve looked at the original passage of the 14th Amendment and what that phrase meant subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. According to the original sponsors of the 14th Amendment in Congress was that you owed your political allegiance to the United States and not a foreign government.” 

I just want to take note, however, of one key ommission in the amendment. It makes no mention of allegiance to a foreign power. It just lays it out there in plain English: If you’re born or are naturalized in this country, you are a U.S. citizen.

Conservatives ought to stand on historical precedent. This proposal to end birthright citizenship is a notion intended to attack the intentions of illegal residents, which has nsothing to do with the children they bring into this world.

Birthright citizenship: solidly inscribed in Constitution

Let’s just agree with this crystal clear notion … which is that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution makes no distinction among those who are born in this country.

It is silent on whether parents are legal or illegal immigrants. You’re born here, you earn the right of citizenship. Period.

Donald Trump doesn’t see it that way. He wants to ban. He issued an executive order making that declaration. A federal judge, though, has declared Trump’s action in direct violation of the Constitution. Trump will appeal that sensible ruling. How far it goes is anyone’s guess. He’s got that right-wing-stacked Supreme Court on his side.

You must amend the Constitution to use the end of birthright citizenship to stem illegal immigration. There are serious hurdles to clear to amend the document.

The 14th Amendment also stipulates in crystal clear language that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges … of citizens of the United States.”

Our forebears took care to ensure clarity of this amendment.

We must not trifle with birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship must stay

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says this: “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 where they reside.”

Donald J. Trump wants to get rid of that right of those born in this country. Birthright citizenship, he said, must be repealed. Trump said also that he’s the man who’ll do it.

Whoa! Let’s hold on a minute, shall we?

Amending the Constitution requires a whole lot more than merely a presidential declaration. Repealing birthright citizenship would require a super-majority of both houses of Congress to approve it, Then it would require a super-majority of the 50 state legislatures in the United States of America to approve it.

This action goes far beyond a president’s ability — or authority — to make it happen.

This is part of Trump’s anti-immigrant view, which is articulated by many senior advisers within the administration he has created. He wants to stem what he calls the “invasion” of immigrants across our southern border. Many of those immigrants — chiefly the undocumented among them — are bring unborn children with them. Therefore, he reckons that this country cannot afford to have children born to those who are here illegally, but who become U.S. citizens the moment they draw breath.

The amendment was ratified in July 1868 and has served as a beacon for those seeking opportunity in the “land of opportunity.” Trump’s desire to shoo away those seeking a better life in this great nation ignores one of our great land’s basic tenets … which is to welcome everyone born within our borders.

Colo. court invokes 14th … wow!

The Colorado Supreme Court has shown judicial courage that appears to defy precedent.

It has ruled that Donald Trump cannot run for the Republican presidential nomination in that state’s primary because he engaged in an insurrection against the U.S. government on Jan. 6, 2021.

The Constitution’s 14th Amendment says anyone who does such a thing cannot serve in public office. It doesn’t say a thing about “due process,” or “trial by jury,” or a “conviction” of a crime. The Colorado court said, in effect, that the amendment speaks clearly and loudly enough to disqualify the former POTUS from seeking the GOP nomination in Colorado.

I normally would cheer this decision and declare victory in the fight to keep Trump out of the White House. Except for this caveat.

Trump is going to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is packed with a 6-3 super-conservative majority. Three justices were nominated by Trump, so it is quite possible they will vote to overrule the Colorado decision; throw in similar votes from Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Chief John Roberts and then, well … there you have it.

I am left to hope that a couple of those conservatives might be able to break away from their political loyalty and read the 14th Amendment carefully. Then they can assess that what Trump did on 1/6 qualifies as an incitement of the attack that ensued that day.

Yes, I know. It’s a faint hope … but it’s all I have.

Ex-POTUS faces legal steamroller

My ego is in check, meaning that I am willing to acknowledge I am wrong far more frequently than I am right.

There. I’ve laid down my predicate for being able to boast just a little on something I said a while ago … which is that Donald Trump’s legal difficulties well might overwhelm his continuing campaign to become president once again.

Trump is facing the real prospect of being declared ineligible to run for president based on a clause in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that no one who engages in an insurrection or gives “aid and comfort” to those who do is ineligible to seek public office.

Legal scholars on all sides are coming to the same conclusion: The amendment is clear, that Trump did seek to overthrow the government and he damn sure gave aid and comfort to the job that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

The amendment makes no stipulation that says an insurrectionist must be convicted of a crime, only that the he or she participated in the act.

Boy howdy! Trump damn sure did participate.

The 14th Amendment was enacted just after the Civil War. Its aim was to prevent states from seceding and declaring war against the government.

To be clear, this matter is far from settled. There have been lawsuits filed and myriad court battles loom. This matter could up in the laps of the U.S. Supreme Court. I won’t pretend to predict how the SCOTUS would rule on this case. Its members include three Trump nominated justices, along with three other conservatives.

One final note. The calls for disqualification are coming from conservative lawyers and assorted legal scholars along with progressives. Maybe the right-wingers out here among the masses can beat some sense into the skulls of the six conservatives on the nation’s highest court.

Donald Trump, to be abundantly clear, is now engaged in the fight of his life.  I don’t know what y’all might think, but from my North Texas perch, he is looking more and more like a goner.

Is Trump disqualified?

Can it possibly be true that Donald J. Trump’s conduct on 1/6 — his provoking the assault on our government and his giving “aid and comfort” to those who mounted the attack — has disqualified him from seeking the presidency?

That is the view of two highly esteemed legal experts. One of them is a conservative, the other is a liberal. They are, respectively, former U.S. District Judge Michael Luttig and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe.

The have written an op-ed in which they declare that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution means that Trump is hereby disqualified from seeking the presidency. Period … full stop!

Luttig said that when the amendment was ratified in 1868 — shortly after the Civil War — it made no qualifier to declaring someone ineligible if they knowingly engaged in an insurrection or rebellion. The amendment’s intent was to prevent another war within the United States.

Indeed, at least two congressional leaders — House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell — are on record declaring that Trump was responsible for the attack on the government that sought to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. Oh, did I mention that Trump lost that election to Joe Biden?

They have been joined, interestingly, by a host of conservative legal scholars who contend that Trump, indeed, should be barred from the presidential ballot because of what he said that day on the Ellipse. He challenged the crowd to take control of the electoral process and stop the certification of what he contends to this day as a “stolen” election.

Two conservative law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, wrote in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, according to CBS News:

In writing about Trump’s speech from the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, to his supporters who then overran the Capitol, Baude and Paulsen said Trump delivered a “general and specific message” that the election was stolen, calling on the crowd to take immediate action to block the transfer of power before falling silent for hours as the insurrection progressed.

“Trump’s deliberate inaction renders his January 6 speech much more incriminating in hindsight, because it makes it even less plausible (if it was ever plausible) that the crowd’s reaction was all a big mistake or misunderstanding,” they write.

Oh … my … goodness!

When those upon whom you depend for legal support turn on you in this fashion, it seems to me that it’s time to call it quits.

What the 14th omits …

As I read — and re-read — Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, I am struck by the absence of a single, simple qualifier that our founders left out of that clause.

It refers to the commission of an “insurrection or rebellion” by someone who might want to return to public office after having pledged to protect the government against such actions.

It states that “No person” shall be a senator, U.S. representative, president or vice president if they violate that oath. Period.

It says nothing about whether that person must be convicted in a court of law to disqualify him from office.

I bring this up because of constitutional scholar chatter that’s making the rounds about whether Donald Trump is qualified to seek the presidency in 2024. Some argue that of course he should be tried in court and have that decision delivered by a jury. Others argue that the Constitution is silent on that issue, therefore, he is disqualified just by an allegation of such an act.

I don’t consider myself to be a constitutional absolutist. I have tended to interpret the founders’ intent a bit more liberally. It is tempting, though, to apply “original intent” to my reading of the 14th Amendment, meaning that if the founders didn’t declare a qualification that it doesn’t exist.

Here is the section in its entirety. You be the judge:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I do hope we can let the courts decide this matter quickly. My preference is for Trump to be convicted and then barred from public office for the rest of his miserable life.

14th Amendment stands out

It appears that of all the 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment has emerged as the most discussed, most cited, most argued and arguably the most important of them all.

I’ve been following a host of legal and political battles for a long time. Just lately, though, it seems that the 14th Amendment keeps surfacing from the legal mumbo-jumbo that at times accompanies these discussions.

Let’s ponder a few notions, shall we?

Section 1 makes two important distinctions. One is that anyone born in the United States is granted citizenship upon birth. A Republican presidential candidate, Ron DeSantis, wants to remove that stipulation from the law. Section 1 also says all citizens are entitled to “equal protection under the law.” This clause has come into play in decisions — to cite one example — regarding gay marriage.

Section 3 declares that anyone who participates in sedition or an insurrection shall be denied the opportunity to seek public office at any level in this country. Hmm. Does that one sound familiar? It should. If Donald J. Trump is indicted for allegedly fomenting the insurrection of 1/6 and then is convicted in a trial, he cannot serve in any public office … ever!

Section 4 declares that the nation’s good faith and credit shouldn’t be messed with, giving the lie to the notion by the MAGA morons who sought to deny efforts to increase the nation’s debt ceiling. Failure to honor our debts would have plunged us into economic catastrophe.

All of this is my way of wondering: Do the MAGA cultists know a damn thing about the Constitution, the oaths of office they take to honor and protect it or the penalties they face if they fail to honor their oath?

I must remind them that they take that oath while placing their hand on a holy book. Thus, the oath is sacred, given the religious tenets to which the politicians claim to follow.

The framers didn’t craft the perfect government framework. It’s pretty damn inclusive and those wise men managed to cram many key provisions into a single amendment to the Constitution.

Moreover, if the MAGA nitwits had half a brain, they would understand that “constitutional absolutism” means they follow the document to the letter … or else.

[email protected]

Why end this amendment?

Some things defy explanation, definition or any semblance of reason. Ladies and gents, I present to you the idiot governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, a Republican candidate for president of the United States.

DeSantis said recently he intends to move to remove a portion of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the clause that grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States of America.

Specifically, he is taking aim at the children of immigrants.

Holy crap-ola, man!

I don’t get this bat-crap crazy dude. He is the grandson of immigrants. He was granted citizenship the moment he entered this world. That’s good enough. His parents were U.S. citizens the moment they were born.

I guess DeSantis’s real target is the undocumented immigrant who sneaked into the country illegally. Therefore, according to DeSantis, it’s OK to punish those people by denying their children a constitutional right that has been part of the Constitution since 1868.

This is short-sighted, gratuitously punitive and petulant in the extreme.

I, too, am the grandson of immigrants. That means my father was the son of immigrants, too. He was a U.S. citizen when this country was attacked by Japanese military forces on Dec. 7, 1941. He enlisted that very day in the Navy because he wanted to get into the fight to save the world from tyranny.

Dad never would have imagined we would be facing a new form of tyranny here at home in the form of a goofy governor seeking to deny liberty to those who were born in this great land.

[email protected]

Constitution lays it out there

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, speaks with crystal clarity about how our government must treat the debt it owes.

Here is what it says: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Wow, man. “Shall not be questioned,” the amendment states.

You know what this means? It means that the Republican dodge in demanding spending cuts before approving an increase in the debt ceiling is, um, an unconstitutional tactic.

President Biden is in the middle of talks with congressional leaders of both parties. He met with them in the Oval Office the other day. They’re planning another meeting on Friday. He said he is “considering” invoking the 14th Amendment if he and the GOP cannot reach an agreement on the debt ceiling.

I am not a constitutional scholar, but I certainly know a declarative statement when I see one.

Section 4 of the 14the Amendment is as declarative statement as anything I can find in the Constitution.

Joe Biden is as fluent in constitutional language as any man who’s ever held the office of president. Mr. President, you need to remind your congressional colleagues of what the nation’s governing document tells them.

[email protected]