May 27, 2025
Hardly anyone disagrees with the statement that America has some serious problems. One of the most serious of those problems is what is happening in our judicial system. Mis-interpretation of our Constitution and our laws is not new, but is a problem.
A prominent interpretation issue has to do with birthright citizenship. In January, shortly after being sworn into office, President Donald Trump signed several executive orders. One of them sought to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
The liberal left, which supports illegal immigration, immediately reacted. They think that according to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, if an illegal alien woman with child sneaks across the border on a Thursday and gives birth to that child on Friday, that child is automatically a citizen of the United States of America.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: “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.”
Upon first reading, and without thoughtful analysis, this would tend to suggest that anyone born in the U.S. is immediately a citizen, no questions asked. But with thoughtful analysis, and/or an understanding of why the 14th Amendment was ultimately passed by Congress, that interpretation falls on its face.
The liberal’s interpretation ignores both the actual language, and the actual purpose of the Amendment. Properly interpreting the Constitution’s language, and the language of laws passed by Congress, is not just relevant, but essential. And, applying the factors that were responsible for that piece of the Constitution, one of its Amendments, or a particular law — the original intent — is critical.
Just because many years or decades have passed, and thinking may have changed since the enactment of the item in question does not mean that those factors should be or can be ignored.
A useful analysis of this comes from the Heritage Foundation, via Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Meese Center, and Hans von Spakovsky, Election Law Reform Initiative Manager and Senior Legal Fellow.
“For the first century following the 14th Amendment’s ratification, few legal scholars would have batted an eye at a directive like Trump’s. If anything, they’d have been more confused as to why the federal government started issuing passports to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, tourists, and ‘temporary sojourners’ in the first place.
“Contrary to popular belief, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all people born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of ‘universal’ birthright citizenship.
“This was intended to constitutionalize the protections of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that ‘all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power’ would be considered citizens.
“That’s because the sponsors of the 14th Amendment made it clear that ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the U.S. means owing your political allegiance to the U.S., and not to another country. Children born to aliens are citizens of their parents’ native land, and thus owe their allegiance to, and are subject to the jurisdiction of, that native land.”
Another example of problematic judicial action is provided by an article in The Western Journal. This challenges that the idea that a federal district judge in one of the hundreds of districts can routinely issue a ruling that affects the entire country, including the actions of its president and the co-equal administrative branch.
“Trump U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued when being questioned by [Supreme Court] Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Thursday that the phenomenon of district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions is relatively new in the nation’s history, becoming prominent in the last four or five administrations.
“Further, they have been meted out in unprecedented numbers against Trump, with 40 in the last four months, he said.
“Sauer directed Kavanaugh to the New Deal under President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a reference point. ‘There were very, very passionate challenges to nationwide policies during the Roosevelt administration, and they were not addressed by issuing universal injunctions,’ the solicitor general highlighted.
“Sauer also addressed the Supreme Court’s past rulings on whether lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions.
“So, when the [Supreme Court] has considered and addressed this, it has consistently said, ‘You have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs appearing in court,’’ Sauer argued.
“Then [Justice Clarence] Thomas made the most important observation of the day by asking, ‘So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?’”
“That’s exactly correct. And in fact, those were very limited, very rare, even in the 1960s,” Sauer responded. “It really exploded in 2007.”
So, we are now experiencing a pandemic of improper judicial rulings, it seems. Are these the result of persons appointed to positions of federal judgeships who really do not understand the law and the necessity of judicial neutrality and boundaries? Or, are they more concerned with political goals than with being judicially neutral referees in these cases?