Executive Orders do not overrule the Constitution. That would mean there is no law. No law at all. It would make every president a dictator; whose word is law. Something which is unthinkable and incompatible with democracy.
You followed that by saying they just decided no federal judge is King (not what OP said), and you supported both of your statements by saying that, "if there's going to be broad spread relief [to an executive action], there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in".
And tell me, what branch of government is the loss of the steadfast check-and-balance known as "universal injunctions" in favor of – and will now require for ANY AND ALL parties to ONLY be recognized for their loss and damages from actions of the Executive ONLY IF they have the means to sue for it and prevail – in a 1:1 cardinality? Could it be the Executive, who OP said this supported Kingsmanship for?
If a executive action is so unjust, so grotesque, and you need to round up parties damaged by it – outside of the absurdly long time most courts take to make things whole – can't that also be a way to round up people being directly targeted by 1 of 3 branches?
Example: EO-1 quietly builds a “voluntary” federal digital ID, so no one is harmed and nobody has standing for their own injunctions. Then, EO-2 later makes that ID mandatory to file taxes, get Social Security, renew a passport, etc. Real injury finally appears, but each citizen must sue alone and any victory helps only that plaintiff while everyone else stays locked out. The first order sinks the foundations; the second flips the switch.
That’s the executive tilt OP warned about.
In 2024 SCOTUS injected new very very very very broad immunity from prosecution to all past, present and future presidents. Leading a violent insurrection apparently qualifies as a "presidential act"? They are indeed Kings now.
The 14th Amendment includes the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Is a child born to a foreign national who is present in the US without legal authorization subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Historically, we’ve said “yes”. This EO instructs the executive branch to adopt the position of “no”.
This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BATFE changing the way it interprets an longstanding statute in a new way — which, by the way, they do very frequently.
With all due respect, what about my comment makes that ironic? I’m generally quite careful not to post if the only thing I have to offer is an opinion, and try to keep opinion out of it entirely.
> What you're describing is like saying a president can re-interpret the meaning of 'militia' in the 2nd amendment and start confiscating everyone's firearms because they're not members of a militia. Even despite rulings like Heller.
That’s basically what was done prior to Heller. Not for “everyone”, but functionally for several minority groups. Since Heller those efforts have primarily been at the state level (which is somewhat different, even with incorporation).
> This is exactly the argument that the dissent in this case makes.
Prior to today, I wasn’t super familiar with the case law here. It does look like SCOTUS has ruled in the past: US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
It’s after 4am here, and Wong Kim Ark is a long ruling. I simply don’t have the attention remaining to read the whole thing right now, but I skimmed it and ran it through my a couple of LLMs. In skimming it, it appears to be applicable here both broadly and specifically. All the LLMs I’ve tried agree with that statement, including when phrased in the negative.
In short: I was wrong, I believe you’re correct, and this EO should be overturned citing this precedent.
——
As we’ve spoken of opinion, I’ll break with my normal course and state plainly: I believe birthright citizenship should be ended. However, given what I know now, the only acceptable way to do so would be a Constitutional amendment.
I’m opposed to anything that oversteps governmental authority, regardless of whether or not it happens to serve my own political interests at the time.
It sounds like they’re referring to this:
> This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BATFE changing the way it interprets an longstanding statute in a new way — which, by the way, they do very frequently.
The recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned Chevron deference limited the ability of such organizations to interpret the law. If the law does not make it clear then it (now) must be interpreted by a judge. I assume the irony they are referring to is in thinking this Supreme Court would have ruled in a seeming contrary way in this case. (It is a bit ironic but is also beside the point, which I guess explains why they put it in a parenthetical.)
----
> I believe birthright citizenship should be ended.
I am curious to understand why you take this position. Would you mind explaining your perspective?
If a child is born on US soil - whether that be US proper or US embassies in foreign countries (which are treated as US soil), they are automatically a citizen.
Note that it also explicitly skips foreign nationals born inside foreign embassies, which are treated as sovereign land of the hosted country - e.g., a French Embassy is French land, so a child born to a French ambassador is not a US citizen.
The argument that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction would also be followed by the absurdity that law enforcement could not arrest them for crimes and ICE could not deport them... due to lack of jurisdiction.
> Note that it also explicitly skips foreign nationals born inside foreign embassies
I’m unsure whether or not being on embassy grounds changes anything here in a general sense, but a child born to a foreign ambassador is not a US citizen regardless of birth location. The fact that the parents are foreign nationals working on behalf of a foreign nation means that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Of course, now I’m curious how things would shake out if, for instance, a foreign state appointed a US citizen as their ambassador to the US…
> The argument that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction would also be followed by the absurdity that law enforcement could not arrest them for crimes and ICE could not deport them... due to lack of jurisdiction.
This makes sense, but I want to know more about the specific legal process happening here.
I believe we can agree on the following. Let me know if you disagree with any of these bullet points:
- Ambassadors to the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US
- Children of ambassadors to the US who are born in the US are not citizens of the US, barring extenuating circumstances such as at least one parent being a US citizen themselves.
- The only available remedy in most cases for an ambassador violating US law is ejecting them from the country (deportation).
To put it another way, if the US could not deport people without jurisdiction we would not be able to eject foreign diplomats. Given that we have done that in the past, _clearly_ the US does not require jurisdiction to for at least _some_ deportations.
> This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BATFE changing the way it interprets an longstanding statute
Here we're talking about constitution amendment. While the court does reinterpret constitution from time to time it's not something they do very frequently. Especially if you talk about more than a century precedent. Especially if the original meaning was quite straightforward: obviously a foreign national who is present in the US without legal authorization is subject to the jurisdiction of the US, I haven't seen illegals running around killing people and police choosing to ignore them because, hm, they aren't subject to US jurisdiction.