It seems to me that the Trump EO serves as a political ploy by playing to his far right wing, while allowing for SOCUTS to disagree with the administration on a case. I dont see how Trump loses, he knew when he signed the EO that it wouldnt stand, I think it is more of a vehicle to other means, he already got them to limit nationwide injunctions with it.
It has felt odd to me to say the birthright citizenship clause of 14th Amendment got rid of “not subject to any foreign power” clause in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Civil Rights Act passed became law in April of 1866, over Johnson’s veto, and Congress passed the 14th Amendment in June of 1866. Congress then re-enacted the Civil Rights Act as part of the Enforcement Act of 1870 (Section 18). It feels incongruous that the 14th Amendment would be repealing the part of law that it was intended to constitutionalize, and which was re-enacted after ratification. (I’m also not sure how I feel about the Amendment adopting English common law, while rejecting American statutory law that was just passed)
My feeling is more that they weren’t really sure if they want to constitutionalize the “not subject to any foreign jurisdiction” clause, but they certainly want to protect former slaves. After all, the law had only existed for two months like two months and they might want to let the dual citizenship clause have time to play out, but they certainly wanted to protect former slaves (and I people who owed allegiance to no other country).
None of this is to say Trump can change it by EO, but if Congress wanted to pass a law to prevent birth citizenship for would be dual citizens, sure.
It seems to me that the Trump EO serves as a political ploy by playing to his far right wing, while allowing for SOCUTS to disagree with the administration on a case. I dont see how Trump loses, he knew when he signed the EO that it wouldnt stand, I think it is more of a vehicle to other means, he already got them to limit nationwide injunctions with it.
It has felt odd to me to say the birthright citizenship clause of 14th Amendment got rid of “not subject to any foreign power” clause in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Civil Rights Act passed became law in April of 1866, over Johnson’s veto, and Congress passed the 14th Amendment in June of 1866. Congress then re-enacted the Civil Rights Act as part of the Enforcement Act of 1870 (Section 18). It feels incongruous that the 14th Amendment would be repealing the part of law that it was intended to constitutionalize, and which was re-enacted after ratification. (I’m also not sure how I feel about the Amendment adopting English common law, while rejecting American statutory law that was just passed)
My feeling is more that they weren’t really sure if they want to constitutionalize the “not subject to any foreign jurisdiction” clause, but they certainly want to protect former slaves. After all, the law had only existed for two months like two months and they might want to let the dual citizenship clause have time to play out, but they certainly wanted to protect former slaves (and I people who owed allegiance to no other country).
None of this is to say Trump can change it by EO, but if Congress wanted to pass a law to prevent birth citizenship for would be dual citizens, sure.