There is no doubt that the 2024 election was a historic re shift of our federal government. Voters endorsed a Republican President, and then gave him Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate.
Yet there is one branch of government that did not change with last year’s ballots – the Courts.
In the past, we have commended the Judicial Branch as providing justice and stability to our nation at a time when progressives sought to fundamentally alter the American way of life. Our book, Not Wasting a Crisis, the Lawless Biden Administration praises the US Supreme Court in particular for standing against the abuses of our system of government perpetrated by the Biden Administration over the past four years.
But remember that Lady Justice carries a sword – and that sword is double edged.
As described by The Washington Times, a series of temporary restraining orders have been imposed by the federal courts in response to lawsuits brought by various Democrat aligned interest groups. These include “a preliminary injunction halting the president’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, several restraining orders preventing him from pausing government assistance grants and contracts, a block on releasing names of FBI agents involved in pursuing cases against the Jan. 6, 2021, rioters, a freeze on plans to put on leave the entire workforce at the U.S. Agency for International Development, and a stay blocking Mr. Trump from finalizing his mass-buyout plan for the federal workforce.”
Is this judicial interference in the Trump Agenda justified? Is the President acting beyond his authority in issuing so many Executive Orders?
In the case of the Order reversing birthright citizenship, the answer to both questions is yes.
Under the 47th President’s Executive Order, “it is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship…when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.” However, that same order quotes from the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution; “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.” The Order also cites 8 USC 1401, which states that “[t]he following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
In light of these clear statements in both the Constitution and federal law, the Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship could not stand. At the end of January, 2025, the District Court of Washington State issued a temporary injunction prohibiting enforcement of this Order since it would “deprive (citizens) of their constitutional right to citizenship.”
While many Americans may agree with President Trump’s goal of stopping illegal aliens from having “anchor babies” on our soil, his method of effectuating this change through an Executive Order is flawed. The proper procedure is outlined in Article V of the Constitution; “[A]n amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention…[a] proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).”
Thus, if the President and Congress want to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegals, they must follow the procedure outlined in the Constitution, and propose an Amendment.
Regarding the stays of other Executive Orders issued by the President, the answers are not as clear.
According to usa.gov, “[t]he U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is the principal U.S. agency to extend assistance to countries recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms.” Yet, in recent days, we have learned that USAID has been engaged in financing much more than these stated objectives.
As reported by Fox News, “USAID, the government agency in charge of distributing tax dollars to foreign aid projects, once again is being hit with allegations and audits exposing how fraud and corruption are undermining its programs…the multiple reports reflect a decades-long problem with how USAID money is administered and, critics say, how little has been done to fix it.”
Sounds like something you’ve been reading recently in the news, doesn’t it? Only this quote comes from an article published in 2015.
One investigation described in this article from 10 years ago showed that “millions [were] being stolen and sold on the black market from money meant for malaria drugs in Africa. The malaria initiative was set up to help fight the disease but has been hijacked by organized networks in the region that steal large amounts of the drug and resell it on the street. The U.S. spent $2.5 billion between 2006 and 2012 on the President’s Malaria Initiative…[o]f the drugs sent, more than 20 percent were diverted each year, with a street value of $60 million.”
Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow
Photo: Pixabay