Swearing in Trump after he promised on national television to degrade the U.S. Constitution would be assisting him in undermining the Constitution
In a recent interview with Kristin Welker broadcast on national television on December 8, convicted felon and president-elect Trump promised to “absolutely” end birthright citizenship “on day one” of his presidency:
KRISTEN WELKER: You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one.
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Correct.
KRISTEN WELKER: Is that still your plan?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Yeah. Absolutely.
KRISTEN WELKER: The 14th Amendment, though, says that, quote, “All persons born in the United States are citizens.”
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER: Can you get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Well, we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.
Birthright citizenship is guaranteed to Americans by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
In order to assume the office of President, Trump must take a Presidential Oath in which he must swear to faithfully preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not erode it:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” [Underlining emphasis added.]
Thus Trump has publicly stated an intent to violate his oath of office before taking it.
Swearing in of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005. His oath required him to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Knowing Trump intends to find a way to undermine the Constitution instead of preserving, protecting and defending it as required by oath, Chief Justice John Roberts should refuse to swear him into office. If Roberts doesn’t and swears Trump in anyway, then Roberts will become Trump’s accomplice in degrading the Constitution and thus violate his own oath of office, which required him as a Supreme Court Justice to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Trump has made it abundantly clear on more than one occasion that he is a domestic enemy of the Constitution. In December of 2022, he publicly called to terminate the Constitution to overturn the 2020 election so he could be president again. Liz Cheney said at the time, “No honest person can now deny that Trump is an enemy of the Constitution.”
Knowing Trump’s intent, and his broader desire to “terminate” the Constitution, swearing Trump into office despite would make Chief Justice Roberts a domestic enemy of the Constitution as well.
The big problem with our judicial system, is they often toss out cases they do not want to deal with by declaring that the person does not have standing, or simply cannot show they are affected. A few years back in a big election case in pa, the Supreme court refused to hear the case saying the person on the ballot did not have standing. Then they said a citizen voting did not have standing. Then the lawmakers from Pa did not have standing. The republicans did not lose the case, it never made it that far because the court declared no one had standing to start a case. Democrats like to gloat and say trump lost, but in fact Society lost by not having a justice system that seeks justice.
Excellent analysis of the situation, Trump is a self declared emy of the Constitution, and the United States. He will attempt to destroy the protections of stated in the Constitution, from his total ignorance of anything pertaining to truth, justice or the American Way. His lack of intellect, decency or any sense of justice is endangering this country.
It will be with deep sorrow that I will be saying ” I told you so, until he’s either impeached, or dies in office.”
You think the founding fathers intended for a Chinese national to have the ability to be a week away from birth, fly to the US, give birth, fly home and raise a “US citizen” for the next 30 years in China?
They also didn’t intend for Black people to be free, or for women (of any color) to vote, you damned Froot Loop.
Which illustrates my point, genius.
Except that the Constitution has evolved to grant people more freedoms, and more protection for those freedoms, as society has changed. Not fewer.
Your fantasy is that it should be used to restrict people, according to your own prejudices.
Which is cowardly, to say the least.
I’m probably traveling in the wrong circles, but I’ve never heard.that the constitution has “evolved” to grant people more freedoms along with protections for those freedoms.
Are you talking about rights? The constitution was written to protect rights.
Philosophically, I don’t think the constitution grants rights “or” freedoms. Some people say these rights are granted by God. But, Locke called them natural rights.
There isnt anything in the preamble that mentions freedoms.
but it does mention liberty.
Are you talking about the Four Freedoms?
developed by FDR.
If you are talking about the 13th or 19th ammendments.
It was pretty clearly stated that the constitution removed restrictions…not granted rights or “freedoms”. Those rights already existed.
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, has and still draws debate on both sides of the birth right citizenship question.
“Born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” means born or naturalized under such circumstances as to be completely subject to that jurisdiction, that is as completely as citizens of the United States, who are, of course, not subject to any foreign power, and can of right claim the exercise of the power of the United States on their behalf wherever they may be. When, then, children are born in the United States to the subjects of a foreign power.
Yes, the Supreme court ruled in favor of birth right citizenship, in a broad interpretation. But as we have seen lately, the court does change its mind, most recently in Row V Wade.
Are we to assume that seeking a less broad interpretation is “eroding”? As the author is implying? That can be a slippery slope. We should tread lightly in what we are calling those we disagree with.
If courts are sending illegals home instead of prison for violating our laws, then the courts are saying the illegals are not subject to our jurisdiction.
Another interesting point because so many people say that those who are here illegally should be/are afforded the same rights as those who are here legally…and that there are court cases which have affirmed this.
Good points. What I understand is that the 14th ammendment was primarily intended to grant citizenship to former slaves. It has been called one of the reconstruction ammendments.
Trump did misspeak, however.
He said we are the only country who subscribes to “jus soli.”
There are many countries who grant citizenship to persons born on the soil. But many, many have restrictions…such as one of the parents must be a citizen. Some countries used “jus soli” to attract new people. Some have no restrictions. But, the majority of European countries don’t grant birthright citizenship.
It drives me crazy when Trump is lazy in his rhetoric like this.
To Anne’s point, slavery was part of our constitution when Lincoln swore to uphold it. By her logic, Lincoln shouldn’t have been sworn in.
But Trump was right that it will be a hell of a stretch to ammend the ammendment
It just seems like the majority of the SCOTUS doesn’t care. They are willing to take away womens rights and make their chosen leader immune. The republican party and those who vote for them are all in as well. No matter the protests or petitions by those who see the courts actions as wrong it appears they are willing to either ignore the tenets of the constitution or believe their translation of it is binding.
Yes, the Supreme Court’s interpretation is binding…until it is challenged and the case that is brought before that court is decided differently.
…Like Brown vs the Board of Education.