Tag: Scott

Posted on

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution’s Bright Line

What Ali Velshi is getting at goes beyond a simple policy disagreement—it’s a clash over whether the meaning of citizenship in the United States is fixed by the Constitution or open to reinterpretation by political power. His framing roots the debate where it actually belongs: in the historical rupture created by the Fourteenth Amendment after one of the darkest chapters in American legal history, the Dred Scott decision. That ruling didn’t just deny citizenship to Black Americans; it asserted that an entire class of people could be permanently excluded from the political community, regardless of birthplace. The 14th Amendment was designed as a direct, unequivocal rejection of that idea. It didn’t leave room for ambiguity or shifting political winds—it established a constitutional baseline: if you are born on American soil and subject to its laws, you are a citizen.

Velshi’s argument is powerful because it highlights that this wasn’t just a legal tweak; it was a structural safeguard. Before the amendment, states—and by extension, political actors—could decide who counted and who didn’t. That meant citizenship could expand or contract based on prejudice, economics, or political expediency. The framers of the 14th Amendment deliberately removed that discretion. By constitutionalizing birthright citizenship, they created a bright-line rule that would prevent future generations from relitigating who belongs. In that sense, the amendment is not just about inclusion; it’s about stability. It ensures that citizenship is not something that can be negotiated away or narrowed through executive action or shifting interpretations.

From this perspective, any attempt by the Trump administration to end or limit birthright citizenship through executive action runs directly into that constitutional wall. Velshi’s point that the amendment placed citizenship “beyond the reach” of presidents is not rhetorical flourish—it reflects a core principle of constitutional law: the executive branch cannot override a constitutional guarantee. The language of the amendment—“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens”—has long been understood, including by the Supreme Court, to apply broadly. The landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark reinforced that interpretation, affirming that birth on U.S. soil confers citizenship regardless of parental nationality, with narrow exceptions like children of diplomats. Velshi’s argument aligns with over a century of legal precedent and constitutional understanding.

At the same time, to fully grapple with the issue, it’s important to acknowledge the counterarguments that supporters of former President Donald Trump might raise. Their central claim often hinges on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They argue that this language was never intended to include everyone born on U.S. soil, particularly children of individuals who are in the country unlawfully. In their view, being “subject to the jurisdiction” implies a more complete political allegiance than mere physical presence. They may point to historical debates suggesting that the amendment’s framers were primarily concerned with formerly enslaved people and not modern questions of immigration, and they argue that the current interpretation stretches the original intent beyond recognition.

Additionally, Trump administration defenders might frame the issue less as a constitutional rollback and more as a policy correction. They could argue that birthright citizenship, as currently applied, creates incentives for unauthorized immigration and “birth tourism,” and that reinterpreting the amendment is necessary to align citizenship with contemporary realities. From this standpoint, they may claim that courts have not fully revisited the scope of the 14th Amendment in light of modern immigration systems, leaving room for executive or legislative clarification.

Still, these counterarguments face significant hurdles. The historical record, while complex, largely supports a broad understanding of birthright citizenship, and Supreme Court precedent has consistently reinforced that view. More importantly, Velshi’s underlying point remains difficult to escape: the 14th Amendment was designed precisely to prevent the kind of selective inclusion that these arguments could enable. Once citizenship becomes contingent—on parental status, legal technicalities, or shifting interpretations—it risks returning to a system where belonging is conditional rather than guaranteed.

In the end, the debate is not just about immigration policy; it’s about whether the Constitution sets firm boundaries that protect fundamental rights or whether those boundaries can be reinterpreted by those in power. Velshi’s argument insists that the line drawn by the 14th Amendment is intentional, durable, and essential to the American identity. The counterarguments, while not without legal nuance, ultimately ask whether that line should be moved. And that is a question that goes to the heart of what the Constitution is meant to do: not merely reflect the will of the moment, but to restrain it.

Posted on

Is CJ Roberts The New Roger Taney?

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

An interesting discussion unfolded on MSNOW’s All In with Chris Hayes in a segment that was initially intended to examine whether the courts have held up against the threat of authoritarianism posed by Trump 2.0. What emerged instead was a sobering assessment of the judiciary’s uneven performance—and a striking indictment of the Supreme Court’s role in enabling, rather than constraining, presidential power.

There was broad agreement among the panelists that the lower federal courts have largely done their job. District courts and federal appellate courts have repeatedly pushed back against Trump-era policies that stretch or outright exceed constitutional authority, issuing rulings that reflect a continued commitment to legal norms and institutional guardrails. In that sense, the judiciary below the Supreme Court was seen as functioning as a genuine check on executive overreach. That consensus, however, collapsed the moment the conversation turned to the nation’s highest court.

On the Supreme Court, the panel was unified in its criticism. Rather than reinforcing the limits imposed by the Constitution, the Court was described as an active enabler of the Trump administration, routinely undermining or reversing lower-court efforts to restrain him. The justices, in this telling, have not merely failed to defend democracy but have helped hollow it out, often by cloaking deeply political outcomes in the language of neutral legal principle.

The segment took a dramatic turn when NYU Law Professor Melissa Murray made a blunt and explosive claim: that Chief Justice John Roberts has now surpassed Roger Taney as the most damaging chief justice in American history. Taney, long regarded as the Court’s nadir, presided over the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which declared that Black Americans could not be citizens and helped propel the nation toward civil war. To suggest that Roberts belongs in the same conversation—let alone that he is worse—was a jarring assertion, and Murray did not soften it.

Professor Murray argued that Roberts has authored at least four opinions that she described as “the absolute most corrosive for democracy.” She pointed first to Rucho v. Common Cause, a decision that effectively blessed extreme partisan gerrymandering by declaring it a nonjusticiable political question. In doing so, the Court closed the federal courthouse doors to challenges against a practice that allows politicians to choose their voters, entrenching minority rule in state after state. She then cited Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 ruling that gutted the Voting Rights Act by striking down its preclearance formula, a move that unleashed a wave of voter suppression laws across the country almost immediately. Murray also pointed to Trump v. United States, the presidential immunity case, which dramatically expanded the scope of executive immunity and signaled that a president may be functionally above the law when acting under the guise of official duties.

Although she did not explicitly name a fourth decision, the implication was hard to miss. Citizens United looms over any discussion of democratic corrosion, having opened the floodgates to unlimited, often opaque political spending and accelerating the transformation of American democracy into something approaching oligarchy. Taken together, these rulings form a throughline in which democratic participation is narrowed, accountability is weakened, and power is consolidated in the hands of the few—all under the stewardship of a chief justice who has repeatedly claimed to care deeply about the Court’s legitimacy.

Whether the argument that “Roberts is worse than Taney” gains wider traction remains to be seen, but it is crucial to note that Professor Murray is far from alone in making it. Legal scholars and commentators have increasingly drawn parallels between Taney’s Court, which entrenched slavery and inequality, and a modern Court that has systematically undermined voting rights, empowered unchecked executive authority, and normalized vast concentrations of political power. What made the moment on All In so striking was not just the severity of the claim, but the growing sense that it no longer sounds fringe. Instead, it reflects a mounting recognition that the greatest threats to American democracy may now be coming not from lawless actors outside the system, but from those entrusted to interpret and preserve it.