Can The President Change The 14th Amendment

President Donald Trump attacked House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., on Wednesday for his opposition to a presidential executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents not legally in the United States.

"Paul Ryan should be focusing on belongings the Majority rather than giving his opinions on Birthright Citizenship, something he knows nothing near!" Trump tweeted.

Trump doesn't seem to know a whole lot more than virtually executive orders and how they relate to ramble rights.

Commencement, it appears likely that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right. In that location are opponents who claim that information technology is not, or at least that it's an open question. Still, it'south hard to argue with what appears to be clear language of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause, the history of reliance on this "right" and Supreme Court cases which announced to endorse "jus soli" — constitutionally granted citizenship by virtue of birth on American soil.

If birthright citizenship for children of parents not legally on American soil is enshrined in the 14th Amendment, it cannot be extricated by means of an executive order.

Article II, Department I of the Constitution provides that "(t)he executive power shall be vested in a President of the U.s. of America." And that's by and large information technology, equally far as the Constitution goes. That hazy language establishes the president every bit the caput of the executive co-operative, and renders him the dominate of the heads of government agencies. Information technology'due south besides the source of ability for the executive order or "EO."

While nebulous at times, there accept been generally two kinds of EOs since President George Washington'south time: "documents with written instructions … to executive branch officials" and "written statements that communicate a presidential conclusion…"

The president's power includes "general administrative control of those executing the laws," within the Executive Co-operative. Seeing that the laws are faithfully executed vests in the president the power to provide guidance and supervision to his subordinates. In that location are recognized limits, however: "The President'southward ability (under Article 2, § iii) to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the thought that he is to exist a lawmaker." The "executive society" must ultimately be subordinate to statutes enacted past Congress.

The federal judiciary is also empowered to review the constitutionality of EOs. Indeed, it is the recognized duty of federal courts to preserve the Constitution'due south safeguards. In the by, the courts accept invalidated executive orders that exceeded presidential power.

In 1952, for example, the Supreme Court held that President Harry Truman's executive order that authorized his secretarial assistant of commerce to take over the land'due south steel mills was unconstitutional considering the president acted without constitutional or statutory authorisation.

And in 1996, the D.C. Court of Appeals concluded that an EO issued by President Bill Clinton was unlawful. Clinton's EO prevented employers performing under federal contracts from hiring strike breakers. The D.C. Circuit concluded this EO interfered with employers' right to hire their called workers.

If the president cannot legislate by EO, and if he cannot overturn congressional legislation by EO, then it follows that he surely cannot overturn an established ramble correct, even if he actually, really disagrees that such a right exists.

Even if the White House has a skillful organized religion belief that birthright citizenship is based on the public's, and the Supreme Court's, misinterpretation of the constitution, it's pretty clear the residual of the land has operated for hundreds of years in reliance on birthright citizenship.

The correct predates the United States itself, as information technology derives from the English language common law. At a minimum, an EO removing birthright citizenship would require demonstrating to the reviewing court (in the example that would be filed 30 seconds after the EO was issued) that the Citizenship Clause of the Constitution has been misunderstood for centuries, and is therefore junior to an EO.

And then the court would have to consider whether executive orders — which are below both federal statutes and the constitution on the legal hierarchy — could deign to remove a right considered ramble for and then long. It'south just not likely, though there are opponents of birthright citizenship who say it'due south possible.

Trump is convinced that he has the power to remove birthright citizenship by EO; he may upshot such an order because of this firmly held belief.

However, "the separation of powers does not depend on the views of individual Presidents…" Information technology depends on what the federal courts ultimately say most a particular presidential human activity, and whether information technology exceeds his say-so. That is the constitutionally designed safeguard against the historically uncertain ability of the executive order.

Danny Cevallos is an MSNBC legal analyst. Follow @CevallosLaw on Twitter.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/no-mr-president-executive-order-can-t-change-constitution-here-n929806

Posted by: mcdanielmorly1947.blogspot.com