The Declaration Turns 250 — the 14th Amendment Just Kept Its Promise
The same week we’re celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the Supreme Court upheld the 14th Amendment. Fittingly, the ruling fits well with the Declaration’s legacy.
The 14th Amendment was the second of three post-Civil War amendments and was passed as a direct repudiation of the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which ruled that no person of African descent can be a citizen.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens ...,” it states.
In this week’s ruling, Trump v. Barbara, the Court struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to people born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or lawful residents.
Conservative judicial reasoning, sometimes called originalism, applies the plain meaning of the text as it was intended when it was written. Liberal judicial reasoning, the “living document” approach, reinterprets the text through a modern lens. This ruling, written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, is very much consistent with originalism. If you look at the plain wording of the 14th Amendment, there is no wiggle room for an exception for the newborns of undocumented immigrants. However, the ruling was joined by conservative Trump appointee Barrett and the three liberal justices while the dissents were from three conservatives, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch.
In a test case, the Supreme Court ruled in Wong Kim Ark (1898) that people born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents are U.S. citizens. So this week’s ruling maintains this status quo we’ve had for over a century, yet many right-wing figures have declared this non-change as the end of America. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller described it as “national self-obliteration.” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts called it a “tremendous betrayal of the Republic.” Sean Davis, CEO and co-founder of The Federalist, said the decision allowed “hostile invasion” and listed “dissolution of the union” as a possible remedy. America has never had their policy preference, yet now we’re told that the oldest modern democracy cannot survive without it.
In addition to the intent of the 14th Amendment, there is the question of presidential authority. In a government intentionally designed to avoid concentrated power, the Court recognized that the president doesn’t have the authority to simply overturn over 100 years of legal precedent with the stroke of a pen. While the opinion on the 14th Amendment was 5-4, there were six justices who agreed with limits on the executive. Justice Kavanaugh, concurring in the judgment but not the constitutional reasoning, agreed the order was unlawful, but argued it violated a federal statute rather than the Constitution itself. He noted Congress could pass new legislation, consistent with the 14th Amendment, to create exceptions in the future. Whether that is correct, or a constitutional amendment is required, is a question for a future court. Regardless, Kavanaugh agreed with the majority opinion that the authority does not lie with the president.
Here is another area where right-wing critics show their double standards. When Democrat presidents use executive orders and other means to effectively legislate, conservatives are correct to criticize them for overstepping their authority. A consistent conservative would criticize Trump for doing likewise. Congress creates the law. The president’s job is to execute the laws passed by Congress. If you want to address the problem of “anchor babies,” don’t look to the courts or the president. Look to Congress.
Now let’s take a step back and consider the larger context in which this decision was made. Trump came into office promising mass deportation. While some of his voters thought that meant only criminal undocumented immigrants, that was clearly never the intent. This administration is attempting to rid America of certain immigrant communities altogether. In some cases, like South Florida Venezuelans, it’s even targeting immigrants who voted for him. As pointed out in a previous newsletter, his own DHS suggests deportations should number 100 million. That’s nearly one-third of the country. Big picture, the Court’s decision stands in opposition to this administration’s ethnic cleansing schemes.
Two of the most important ideas put forth in the Declaration of Independence are 1) the inherent dignity of all humans, and 2) a rejection of concentrated executive authority. The Supreme Court helpfully supported these American values in its ruling.
10 Spots Left! Tell Your Pastor About J29!
J29 Cohort equips pastors and ministry leaders to cultivate a Jesus-shaped political imagination in their congregations. Through high-quality training from experienced leaders and shared learning alongside fellow clergy from across the country, participants will be formed for faithful, thoughtful engagement in their local contexts.
Send your pastor this link and encourage them to apply.
You can also help pastors participate in this program by giving a tax-deductible contribution today.
What We’re Reading
Justin Giboney: “When Despair Becomes Self-Indulgent”
Unfortunately, today extreme voices are dominating important conversations and using drama to make the most sensational opinions seem normal. Our political commentary concerning even the most serious civic issues is often overrun by a Real Housewives of Potomac flair for the theatrical. Leaders of the Civil Rights Movement wisely dramatized their activism to put the injustices of Jim Crow on the nightly news in the living rooms of Americans nationwide. But today, we’re captivated by lesser forms of drama with all the amplification but little of the virtue of that era.
Social media algorithms leave us craving worst-case scenarios, longing for another fix from dramatic accusations hurled at our opponents. Any suggestion that an outcome is harmful but not definitively disastrous is held in contempt. And our rivals must always be viewed in the worst possible light. Social justice activism can’t merely be misguided; its patron saint Rosa Parks must be called a fraud. Justice Amy Coney Barrett can’t simply have a wrong opinion; she must be dubbed a white supremacist.
The more extreme the accusation, the more attractive it is for our embrace. The more provocative the accusers, the more “authentic” they are in our culture. We value contemptuous creativity over credibility or compassion.
The Argument: “Elon Musk’s zero accountability life: Elon Musk goes berserk if you talk about USAID”
In other words, the toll from USAID cuts seems to be at best around two-thirds of a million people annually1; that’s about as many people as were killed during the Civil War. At worst, Musk is tied to the deaths of 14 million.
If DOGE had managed to cut tens of billions of dollars from the federal budget, Musk and his defenders would certainly have taken credit. It’s bizarre then to disclaim responsibility for the tragic consequences of the cuts they did make.
NYT: “MAGA Base Stays Quiet After Trump Reports Billions in Personal Gains”
President Trump’s $2.2 billion in personal earnings during his presidency has been met largely with silence from his MAGA base, which has been increasingly willing to revolt against policies they view as an abandonment of his promises to put everyday Americans first.
Far-right members of Congress, prominent media pundits and grass-roots activists have criticized Mr. Trump’s war with Iran and openly broken ranks to demand the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. They have accused him of prioritizing his own interests over the needs of the voters who elected him to office.
But few far-right voices aligned with Mr. Trump have criticized him over the scale of his personal haul, reported this week, or the conflict inherent in his status as a major cryptocurrency industry operator and its top policymaker.
What We’re Watching
Christian Nationalism Study
AVC is not involved in this study, but for anyone who may be interested …
Do you consider yourself a recovering or former supporter of Christian nationalism? If so, you are invited to participate in a research study on what helps people leave Christian nationalism. Participants will be interviewed on Zoom for about an hour. The research team is from Michigan State, Penn State, and the University of Georgia. Email LeavingChristianNationalism@gmail.com to see if you are eligible for this study.
 | A guest post by
|