Judge blocks Trump's 'blatantly unconstitutional' executive order that aims to end birthright citizenship
TFG's (aka The Felony Guy) executive order was drafted by that idiot John Eastman. Eastman has been disbarred in large part because Eastman is an idiot. I am like the judge in this case and wonder where TFG found an attorney stupid enough to push this executive order.
https://bsky.app/profile/petermorley.bsky.social/post/3lggkn2dc2c2x
Link to tweet
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/23/politics/birthright-citizenship-lawsuit-hearing-seattle
Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee who sits in Seattle, granted the request by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and three other Democratic-led states for the emergency order halting implementation of the policy for the next 14 days while there are more briefings in the legal challenge.
A federal judge said Thursday that President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship was “blatantly unconstitutional” and that he was issuing a temporary restraining order to block it.
Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee who sits in Seattle, granted the request by Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and three other Democratic-led states for the emergency order halting implementation of the policy for the next 14 days while there are more briefings in the legal challenge.
“Where were the lawyers” when the decision to sign the executive order was made, the judge asked. He said that it “boggled” his mind that a member of the bar would claim the order was constitutional.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Does he mean the same constitution where Section 3 of the 14th Amendment plainly states that “no person” who “engaged in an insurrection” may hold office?
Judge John Coughenour is correct in stating that this executive order is clearly unconstitutional. The legal justification for this executive order is based on the claim the term "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" allows TFG to exclude children whose parents are not citizens. That argument is wrong. This term only excludes Indians and the children of diplomats
Link to tweet
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
The requirement that a person be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," however, excludes its application to
‼️children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation! ‼️
We have been illegally invaded with hostility.
Based on the first sentence of Section 1, the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.' The requirement that a person be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,
The requirement that a person be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," however, excludes its application to children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation!
