The Supreme Court settled it on June 30. By a vote of 6 to 3, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil, including the children of parents here unlawfully or temporarily, and it struck down the President's order trying to end that. [1][2] Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority. [1]

Then the President told the country how to undo it. He posted that Congress "can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation," and that "No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary." [1]

I read rulings for a living, so let me be precise about why that is wrong - not as opinion, but as a matter of how the Constitution is built.

WHAT THE COURT HELD

  • Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. [2]
  • That makes it a CONSTITUTIONAL command, not a policy set by ordinary law. [2][3]
  • The vote was 6 to 3; the Chief Justice wrote the opinion. [1]

Here is the hierarchy, the part every civics class is supposed to teach. The Constitution sits above ordinary law. When the Constitution guarantees something, Congress cannot take it away by passing a statute, because a statute that conflicts with the Constitution is void. That is the entire point of putting a right in the Constitution: to place it beyond the reach of whoever holds the next majority in Congress.

The Court did not say birthright citizenship is a nice idea that Congress may keep or discard. It said the Fourteenth Amendment requires it. [2] A law repealing it would be a law that contradicts the Constitution, and the same Court that just ruled would strike it down the same way.

THE FRAMERS SAW THIS COMING

In 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court explained why citizenship was written into the Constitution and not left to Congress: the framers thought it "unwise and perhaps unsafe to leave so important a declaration of rights to depend upon an ordinary act of legislation, which might be repealed by any subsequent Congress." [3]

Read that again, because it answers his post directly. The people who wrote the Citizenship Clause put it in the Constitution specifically so that no future Congress could repeal it with a law. The President is proposing the exact thing the framers built the clause to prevent.

There is a legitimate way to change what is in the Constitution. It is called a constitutional amendment, and it is hard on purpose: two-thirds of the House and Senate, then ratification by three-quarters of the states. [3] He called that "long and unwieldy." The framers called it the only door. A bill signed by a President is not that door, no matter how many votes it gets.

THE VERDICT: FALSE

Congress cannot end birthright citizenship "through Legislation." The Supreme Court just held it is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and a constitutional guarantee cannot be repealed by ordinary statute - only by a constitutional amendment. A law trying to do it would be unconstitutional the day it was signed. [2][3]

The Court did its job and told the country what the Constitution says. The response was to tell the country the Constitution does not mean what it says. One of those is a ruling. The other is a wish. Knowing the difference is most of the job of a citizen.