Connect with us

The Dictatorship

There’s a simple reason Trump cannot simply erase birthright citizenship

Published

on

There’s a simple reason Trump cannot simply erase birthright citizenship

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that purportedly would end what is known as birthright citizenshipthe concept that anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. That right is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Just as a president does not have the authority to establish a national religion, or stay in office for a third term, the president does not have the authority to erase protections set forth in an amendment to the Constitution. To claim such authority is cynical at best, a sop to nativist elements on the right that should not survive legal challenge. But, in the meantime, millions of lives could be thrown into disarray with the president’s stroke of the pen, and perhaps that’s the point.

The notion of birthright citizenship was established as a principle of law in England in the 1600s and was enshrined in the U.S.’ “Second Founding,” the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution in the wake of the Civil War.

The president does not have the authority to erase protections set forth in an amendment to the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment, which guarantees to anyone born within the United States the rights and protections of citizenship, was a direct response to the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857. That decision became one of the many sparks that contributed to the Civil War. There, the court not only found unconstitutional any efforts by Congress to “compromise” around the spread of slavery to new U.S. territories and states; it also determined that enslaved persons, even ones who had resided in areas that prohibited slavery, did not enjoy the rights of citizens. The decision helped galvanize and harden public opinion around slavery, both among those who opposed it and those who supported it and wanted it to operate unfettered by federal law.

After the end of the war and during Reconstruction, Congress passed these amendments with the explicit purpose of ending slavery and involuntary servitude in all their forms. The 14th Amendment’s opening text provides that “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.” Because of that language, the president cannot, with the stroke of a pen, rewrite the Constitution.

Nor can Congress. Indeed, roughly 30 years after passage of the 14th Amendment, Congress attempted to exclude from its protections individuals born in the U.S. who were the children of Chinese parents. But the Supreme Court, in United States v. Wong Kim Arkfound that any person born within the United States was entitled to benefit from the citizenship provisions of the 14th Amendment. The plain language of the amendment made that clear and the court endorsed that obvious position.

So what would it really take to rewrite the 14th Amendment? Well, another amendment, which would require not just a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress in favor of repeal of the 14th Amendment, but also ratification by three quarters of the states. Such events are highly unlikely. The Constitution is hard to amend, as it should be. And the notion that the president can sidestep that process is simply preposterous.

Now, that likely will not stop the president and those who wish to see the end of birthright citizenship as enshrined in the Constitution from trying. Indeed, it was a pillar of the Project 2025 playbook. That does not change the fact that the Constitution protects this path to citizenship and only an amendment to the Constitution can change it.

But that does not mean that the president’s effort to try to rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen will not disrupt lives in the meantime. The cruelty of such a cynical move may be exactly what those who wish to end birthright citizenship wish to achieve.

The lives of real people will not be upended, and all for a cynical, cruel and unconstitutional joyride. But that may be the point.

Certainly, such a step would be met promptly by lawsuits challenging the action. In fact, a collection of 18 state attorneys general and some cities have already filed a suit against the order. Perhaps some judge, somewhere, will consider such an action permissible and refuse to prevent it from going into effect. Would it only prevent citizenship from being conferred on those born on U.S. soil in the future as the order purports to do? Could a judicial ruling approving the order invite the administration to seek to strip current citizens of their status?

But the Supreme Court — even this conservative court — will be hard-pressed to engage in down-is-up, up-is-down, Alice-in-Wonderland thinking: that the explicit words of the Constitution, as interpreted consistently for roughly a century-and-a-half, do not mean what they say.

Nevertheless, the president is seeking to end birthright citizenship; such action should be deemed contrary to the plain text of the Constitution. At the same time, lower court endorsement of the position might embolden even more aggressive steps by the administration, even if the Supreme Court should ultimately say the order is unconstitutional, which it should. That does not mean that, in the interim, the lives of real people will not be upended, and all for a cynical, cruel and unconstitutional joyride. But that may be the point.

Ray Brescia

Ray Brescia is a Professor of Law at Albany Law School and author of the forthcoming book, “The Private Is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism.”

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

‘Shamefully stupid’: Critics blast U.S. move to lift Iran oil sanctions

Published

on

‘Shamefully stupid’: Critics blast U.S. move to lift Iran oil sanctions

Critics say the Trump administration’s decision to halt sanctions on Iranian oil — in a bid to curb soaring energy prices caused by the intensifying war — benefits the very regime the United States is fighting.

“It’s very clear that the Trump administration is trying to alleviate some of these global energy and oil market pressures, but at the same time, what they’re doing is allowing Iran to be able to benefit from that relaxation of sanctions,” former CIA Director John Brennan said on MS NOW’s “The Weekend” on Saturday. “It shows the inconsistencies in these policies.”

Brennan, MS NOW’s senior national security and intelligence analyst, predicted the conflict will last “a long, long time, and it’s going to be very, very dangerous for U.S. national security interests.”

Philip Gordon, a former national security official in the Biden, Obama and Clinton administrations, accused Trump of hypocrisy for “giving Iran up to ten times” the amount of money that former President Barack Obama sent to the country in 2016.

When Obama sent Iran $400m + $1.3bn in interest in 2016 Trump called it “insane” and he and others spent a decade mocking the idea of “pallets of cash” even though it was Iran’s own money, American prisoners were released, courts were likely to require the U.S. payment, and Iran… https://t.co/RhP8nZRT9D

— Phil Gordon (@PhilGordonDC) March 21, 2026

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the pause in sanctions in a post on X Friday, saying it would add roughly 140 million barrels of oil to global markets. He said Iran “will have difficulty accessing any revenue generated” from those sales, and that the U.S. will essentially “be using the Iranian barrels against Tehran to keep the price down.”

But critics, including those in Congress, which did not authorize President Donald Trump’s decision to wage war on Iran jointly with Israel, say easing sanctions on the Islamic Republic helps Tehran no matter how the administration tries to sell it.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, accused the administration of “giving the regime a financial lifeline.”

“To say the President has no plan is an understatement,” she said in a statement on X.

“The Trump Administration is lifting sanctions on Iranian oil, giving the regime a financial lifeline while Americans continue to feel the impact of @POTUS’s war.

To say the President has no plan is an understatement.” –@SenatorShaheen https://t.co/tiiHbD9NaF

— Senate Foreign Relations Committee (@SFRCdems) March 20, 2026

In an attempt to stem the economic fallout from the war, as Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz destabilizes global energy markets, the Trump administration also lifted sanctions on Russian oil last week, angering European allies who want to continue exerting economic pressure on Moscow.

“Sickeningly, shamefully stupid—lifting sanctions on oil sales by Russia & Iran, fueling their war machines with windfall cash,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said in a social media post on Friday. “A minimal benefit to oil prices, but huge boost to sworn enemies.”

Tommy Vietor, a former National Security Council spokesman in the Obama administration, said“This is the biggest, dumbest concession ever given to Iran by the US and all you need to know about what a disaster Trump’s policy is.”

Neither Trump nor members of his administration have given a definitive timeline for U.S. involvement in the war. Trump told MS NOW’s Stephanie Ruhle on Friday that it would take Iran 10 years to rebuild if the U.S. ended the war now, but suggested that was not acceptable to him.

“If we stay longer, they’ll never rebuild,” he said.

Still, the president indicated later in the day that he is thinking of an exit soon. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he is considering “winding down” the military operation against Iran and claimed that the U.S. is “getting very close to meeting our objectives” — despite having said repeatedly that the U.S. has “won” the war.

Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump threatens to deploy ICE to run airport security during shutdown

Published

on

Trump threatens to deploy ICE to run airport security during shutdown

President Donald Trump says U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will take over security at the nation’s airports amid staffing shortages and extensive lines as soon as Monday if Democrats won’t back a GOP government funding bill.

“If the Democrats do not allow for Just and Proper Security at our Airports, and elsewhere throughout our Country, ICE will do the job far better than ever done before!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social Saturday afternoon as the Senate met in a rare weekend session. “I look forward to moving ICE in on Monday, and have already told them to, ‘GET READY.’”

The president doubled down on a threat he made earlier in the day after Senate Republicans blocked a long-shot attempt by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to pay TSA agents separately while the Department of Homeland Security shutdown drags on. A funding bill failed to pass the Senate for the fifth time on Friday.

“If the Radical Left Democrats don’t immediately sign an agreement to let our Country, in particular, our Airports, be FREE and SAFE again,” Trump wrote earlier on Truth Social“I will move our brilliant and patriotic ICE Agents to the Airports where they will do Security like no one has ever seen before, including the immediate arrest of all Illegal Immigrants who have come into our Country, with heavy emphasis on those from Somalia.”

MS NOW has reached out to ICE and DHS for comment.

Flight delays and long security lines at airports have become a pattern over the past week as more TSA agents — who are required to work without pay — are not showing up. Acting deputy TSA administrator Adam Stahl told CBS News this week that officials “may have to shut down airports” if funding continues to stall.

Homeland security funding has lapsed for weeks as Democrats maintain their demands for reforms to the department’s heavy-handed and even lethal immigration enforcement tactics.

Schumer on Saturday urged his Senate colleagues to support his effort to force a vote on funding for TSA agents. “It’s unacceptable for workers and travelers and entire airports to get taken hostage in political games,” the New York Democrat said. “But that’s what the Republicans are doing. It is unacceptable to say we will only pay TSA workers if it is attached to a bill that funds ICE with no reforms. But that’s what the Republicans have been doing.”

Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Former FBI director and special counsel Robert Mueller has died

Published

on

Robert Mueller, the former FBI director for more than a decade who later served as special counsel in the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, died on Friday, according to two people familiar with the matter. He was 81.

The cause of death was not immediately known, but Mueller had been suffering from Parkinson’s disease for years, the people said.

Mueller, whose two-year probe concluded in 2019 that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election of Donald Trump, served as FBI director from 2001 to 2013. The Justice Department in 2017 appointed him special counsel to oversee the growing investigation after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.

The Mueller probe became an obsessive subject for Trump, who repeatedly — as many as hundreds of times — called Mueller’s investigation a “witch hunt,” “a scam” and a “hoax.”

Upon hearing of Mueller’s death on Saturday, the president wrote in a Truth Social post: “Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!”

The president’s comment was immediately condemned by Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who had vigorously pursued allegations of Trump’s ties to Russia while he served on the House Intelligence Committee.

Mueller’s investigation resulted in 37 indictments and seven guilty pleas, though he found no evidence that Trump or his aides coordinated with Russia. The Mueller report, as it came to be known, did not conclude that Trump committed any crime, but it also did not clear the president of obstruction of justice.

The investigation made Mueller a prime Trump target. For years, the president lobbed insults and sought to undermine Mueller’s credibility while claiming a “deep state” conspiracy against him.

The grudge that Trump held against Mueller persisted into his second term. In March 2025, he signed an executive order cutting ties between federal agencies and the law firm WilmerHale, Mueller’s former employer. The order was subsequently struck down by a judge as unconstitutional.

In a statement to MS NOW, WilmerHale called Mueller “an extraordinary leader and public servant and a person of the greatest integrity.”

“We are deeply proud that he was our partner,” the firm said. “Our thoughts are with Bob’s family and loved ones during this time.”

Despite his storied career, the partisan bickering stoked by Trump over Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference endured. After news of his death broke, Democrats lauded his character and legal prowess while Republicans criticized his role in the investigation.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., called him “a dedicated, courageous patriot, skilled prosecutor, & tireless investigative leader.” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., praised his  “integrity, duty, and strength of character.”

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told MS NOW that Mueller served honorably “in his earlier days” but said in “his last public service, I think he was used by some of his colleagues.” Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, struck a similar tone on X: “Up until his leadership of that investigation, Mueller had an extremely strong reputation and career.”

Mueller spent much of his adult life in public service. At a time when many young men were trying to avoid serving in Vietnam, Mueller not only volunteered for the U.S. Marines Corps after graduating from Princeton University, but spent a year waiting for an injured knee to heal so he could serve. He was awarded a Purple Heart after being shot while leading a platoon to rescue American soldiers under attack by the Vietcong.

Mueller later earned a law degree from the University of Virginia Law School. He worked as a litigator in San Francisco before serving in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Francisco, then as an assistant U.S. attorney in Boston.

He joined the Justice Department as an assistant to Attorney General Richard L. Thornburgh in 1989. After a stint as a partner at a Boston law firm, Mueller returned to public service in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

He served as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California from 1998-2001 before being tapped by President George W. Bush to lead the FBI, taking office the week before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

After 9/11, Mueller transformed the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terrorism — and staved off an effort to split the bureau into two parts, one for intelligence and the other for law enforcement.

“Director Mueller led the Bureau during a period of significant change and played an important role in strengthening its ability to confront evolving national security threats while maintaining its core criminal investigative mission,” the FBI Agents Association said in a statement, adding, “The FBIAA extends its condolences to Director Mueller’s family and honors his commitment to public service and to the FBI’s mission.”

Lisa Rubin and Kevin Frey contributed to this report.

Carol Leonnig is a senior investigative reporter with MS NOW.

Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.

Ken Dilanian is the justice and intelligence correspondent for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending