“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all”

― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Today, I just heard, that the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments on the Executive Order DJT issued on changing the 14th Amendment in regards to birthright citizenship. I am worried.

It all boils down to two clear issues. First what is ment by one simple phase in section one of the amendment:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

First is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction”. Up till now this phase ment that the laws of the United States could be applied to what ever is in question. That is the government of the United States could be in-forced on the object or person in question. When dealing with a person, in the simplest case the government agent could apply a law on you. That is do anything from stoping you in the street to taking you into custody. If you are in the jurisdiction of the United States about the only people who are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ are persons with diplomatic immunity (if you know of anyone else please post a link for me).

In the case of the executive order, it seems to be implying, that if you are a criminal, you are not subject to the “jurisdiction”. That is a woman who is hear with out proper papers she is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefor any child she gives birth to is therefor not a citizen. The conundrum facing SCOTUS is that if she is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States how can the laws of the United States be applied to her? If she is subject to the jurisdiction how can the child not be a Citizen?

I wait with bated breath to hear what the court says.

The next issue comes in two forms. Is the President, with this executive order saying the President has the right to interpret the meaning of the constitution in a similar manner as the Supreme Court? If not, is he saying that the President has the right to change/amend the constitution? If the later do not the States need to ratify the amendment? If not, why not?

Now to my personal view:

To the first issue, while ever citizen has a right to say what they think the constitution says is, that is, their own interpretation, only the Supreme Court has the final say in what is the correct interpretation is. An while, as the President, DJT’s interpretation has more weight than mine, it is still not the last word.

I also think his interpretation is total bunk and going to create more problems than it solves. Just one example: If a person is here in the USA “illegally” and therefor not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States how can they be taken into ‘custody’ and deported? The laws of the United States can not be applied to someone who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. So how does the court resolve this logical conundrum? It will be interesting.

If the President can amend the Constitution by Executive Order and that amendment is not subject to ratification by 2/3 of the States what then? What is to prevent a Present amending the constitution so that a President is NOT subject to impeachment? Or that the President is elected for life? Or anything else?

I just do not see SCOTUS doing this and if it does I do not see the Several States standing for it.