The oath of the President is well known. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It is stated explicitly in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution itself.
Within hours of declaring his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order striking a line from the Constitution itself by denying citizens of our country their constitutional citizenship. The right of citizenship is stated in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution: “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 wherein they reside.”
There are many provisions in the Constitution that are vague or ambiguous. That is why we have a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. Take the hallowed Second Amendment, which confusingly refers to the need for a “well-regulated militia” as a basis for the bearing of arms. Few provisions are as glaringly clear as the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to those born in the United States.
The Supreme Court confirmed the clear language of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (a person born of Chinese immigrants). The exceptions were stated under the qualification of “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which then excluded children of diplomats (because of their immunity), enemy combatants (an invasion by a foreign military force or prisoners of war) and those born on foreign ships. Several books could be written on why Native Americans were also denied birthright citizenship, which was not rectified until 1924.
The Trump Administration has claimed that children born of mothers not legally present in the United States (or legally present under a visitor visa) are not “subject to the jurisdiction” thereof, so they are not citizens.
Firstly, it is not up to the President to determine exceptions to the explicit provisions of the Constitution or Supreme Court decisions. Secondly, it doesn’t validate anything by making up a disingenuous (bogus?) interpretation which is itself self-contradictory. If you say the mother is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, that means (like a diplomat), you can’t arrest and deport them because you have no jurisdiction over them.
Vice President J.D. Vance justified this Executive Order based on needing to protect “the interest of our citizens.” Exactly! All citizens. Even the citizens you don’t want to be citizens.
There is a solution. If the country does not like a provision in the Constitution, it can amend it. There are 27 amendments so far (including, first we banned the sale of alcoholic drinks, and then we allowed them). If this is too much of a hassle for our democracy, then wait for a future President that interprets the Second Amendment to mean you have to be in the National Guard to own a firearm. Or, that only certain religions have the right of free expression.
Civics 101 informs us that there are three branches of government. From 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, it has been established that the interpretation of the constitution is under the purview of the Supreme Court.
The President already has issued over 100 Executive Orders. There has not been a peep from Congress. Do we even have three branches of government anymore? Do we now have a Constitution determined by the fiat of one person? The President’s job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as it is written and interpreted by the Supreme Court. That’s his job. This 230-year tradition has served us well.
If our other two branches of government fail to stand up to a breach of oath and the hijacking of the interpretation of the Constitution by the Executive Branch, there is only one word for that: autocracy.
Richard Hegger lives in Somers.