DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE: With the recent 6-3 SCOTUS Executive Order ruling, we see not even nine people can agree on interpreting the Constitution

I googled constitutional limits on executive orders this evening to get an idea of how my column was going to go.

The idea was in my head because of the US Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling last week to end district judges’ power to block President Donald Trump’s executive orders nationwide.

On the topic of orders, as of June 16, Trump had signed his 163rd executive order.

To put that in context – he had been in office 147, and his signing spree had put him over the number of EOs Joe Joe signed during his entire administration.

However, Trump is nowhere close to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 3,728 executive orders (that was in a 12-year span).

Even so, there are also other past presidents who signed well over 1,000 executive orders, meaning Trump is nowhere near making history on this particular issue.

The problem is every time Trump does anything the blue does not like they get irate before doing their homework, alleging Trump is the mastermind for every US misstep.

The problem is in many cases a former president has done the same thing perhaps to even bigger fanfare, but mainstream media instead begins the Trump smear campaign in hopes people won’t do their research.

Let’s take this 6 – 3 ruling a step further since it is attached to the executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors.

While Justice Sonia Sotomayor said this ruling is an “open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution,” has that not already happened on many occasions anyway?

And not just on Trump’s watch.

There are many in the U.S. who could not be happier that not only is there an end in sight to the birthright issue for illegal immigrant’s children, but also an end to district judges performing overstep.

I hadn’t realized the magnitude of these most recent oversteps until I heard U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi explain, “No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump’s policies across the entire nation.”

She reminded that one of the justices stated after the 6-3 ruling, “the district court lacks authority to enter nationwide or universal injunctions.”

I was really taken aback when I discovered there have been only five districts in the country, out of 94 federal judicial districts, that have recently participated in the upholding 35 of the 40 opinions relating to nationwide injunctions.

Only five out of 94 federal judicial districts received all the cases. 

I do not think that is a coincidence and the math is most definitely not mathing.

The fact is the president does have clear authority to sign executive orders at will. That authority is defined by Article II of the U.S. Constitution establishing the basis for executive orders. These responsibilities are provided to allow for the president’s authority to issue executive orders that fall under the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

As you are reading this conundrum regarding executive orders, if your anger is only stemmed by Trump penning his 163, go back to sleep – because you’re not getting the plot.

This has been, and will continue to be, an executive branch issue – and no matter the president or the red and blue control there are checks and balances necessary in any administration. 

For example, does removing district courts from the equation provide for a possible future scenario in which the Supreme Court is the only check on the president’s authority.

Or, does not removing the district courts mean money and prestige is a phone call away to receive a specific injunction as needed.  

With just the stroke of a pen (or auto pen), presidents can change national policy, bypass legislative jams, and move up the timeline for government action. That is the reason it will always be crucial that all three branches get involved (and that means MINUS any lobbyists interested in lining the pockets of the legislative branch).

Congress does hold the authority to countermand executive orders through legislation if necessary. The judicial review serves as a means for the judiciary to keep the executive actions in alignment with the Constitution.

There was an interesting court case I found involving Pres. Truman’s use of an executive order in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer. The Supreme Court ruled Truman’s attempt to seize steel mills during the Korean War exceeded his power since his order did not have a basis in the Constitution and it was not authorized by Congress.

Fast forward to now, from that same angle does “birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors” have a basis in the Constitution?

This isn’t a district court question – this is a constitutional question.

Because let’s face it – there will never be a shortage of money to fund the bleeding heart judges in the United States willing to vote blue, and there will never be a shortage of money to fund the too-far-right leaning conservative judges who think they have the right to legislate morality.

The question lies within the interpretation of the 14th amendment. From this angle, ponder the idea of birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and how it applies to what is going on in the United States NOW.

At www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent, it reads regarding the 14th amendment: “The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus, by definition there were no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.”

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans and that’s why the 14th Amendment was ratified.

More than one African American (both men and women) who I have heard comment have said they wanted to set the record straight with one stating, “The 14th amendment was created for black descendants of slaves and not to be used and abused by the entire world. Trump said this is a loophole that has been exploited for decades. At this point, take it up with your state lawmaker.”

Stateside, the Supreme Court ruling did indicate, “injunctions must be limited to the plaintiffs who sue the government – they cannot be broadly applied nationwide.”

Currently, there are 20 states that have filed against the president’s order to limit birthright citizenship.

That means the remainder of the states did not sue to stop the birthright citizenship order and within 30 days those states will be able to use that order to deny citizenship to babies.

The order ending birthright citizenship will go into effect in 30 days. How this will be done remains to be seen as the court cases arguing related lawsuits and shenanigans will most certainly continue.

The U.S. Constitution is a living entity that can be changed. Whether it’s birthright citizenship, the power of the president’s executive orders, or any other law of the land that the American people decide no longer serves the country.

And no group of people will ever completely agree.

Consider this, same words, same U.S. Constitution, but in the case of the nine supreme court justices last week, six had a different idea than the other three during their interpretation of the constitution.

No, humans will never all agree, but they had better learn to get along.

Rita Cook is a freelance writer for The Ellis County Press. She can be reached at rcook13@earthlink.net.