So DJT lost his Birthright Citizenship case at the Supremes.
I for one am neither surprised nor even that upset about it. Here’s why.
I agree that the whole idea is fatally flawed: that the principle of just being born on U.S. soil makes one an automatic citizen is without equal in just about every other country in the world, where the nationality of one or both parents (if one, usually that of the mother) is the sole determinant of the baby’s citizenship.
And yes, I also know that the 14th Amendment had an entirely different purpose when it was originally passed, and has no proper justification today. But it’s still a Constitutional Amendment, and said document gives very explicit terms under which an Amendment can be altered or abolished; and that process has nothing to do with the sitting President. It remains, quite rightly, the proper preserve of the Congress and of the states, with those pesky two-thirds majorities required at every step of the way.
As such, I’m not comfortable with any POTUS trying to abolish parts of the Constitution by fiat or executive order, for obvious reasons, and that’s why I’m not upset about the Supremes’ decision. We have enough trouble with tinpot politicians deciding that the Constitution — or the part(s) they don’t agree with, anyway (hello, Second Amendment) — can be bypassed with some local law or regulation, and I’m of the firm belief that these people and/or governments need to have their pee-pees whacked, and hard, every time they try to do that.
If we want to end birthright citizenship, we need to do it the difficult way, the way the Founders intended it. That may make it impossible — I hope not — but sometimes the principle is just more important than the action.