Redefining Citizenship in the U.S.

It seems, after more than a decade since the Supreme Court made significant changes to marriage laws, there are now attempts to reshape the concept of American citizenship.

And, just to clarify, I used “attempted” rather than “redefined.” There’s a subtle but important difference here.

“Whenever a free people relinquishes absolute obedience to any branch of government, and retains no recourse from it, their liberty is lost.”

Judicial orders don’t just get enforced automatically. They’re not universally binding, especially for various governmental departments that have discretion in enforcing laws. So, the recent ruling doesn’t dictate how different branches will approach forthcoming cases.

The GOP response thus far has been loud but seems to lack the fervor we saw when the party fractured over marriage rights in 2015.

Now, the stakes are even higher. If the party continues to hesitate, we might find ourselves in a situation that’s too far gone to correct.

This time, Republicans appeared visibly frustrated by the ruling but then opted for a two-week recess instead of using the July 4th break to reaffirm citizenship as something shaped by the will of the people.

Some suggest that the only solution lies in amending the Constitution, although that seems unlikely to ever gain enough traction.

But this perspective suggests Congress is limited to exercising its powers only as set by the courts in cases brought by individuals.

It’s crucial for conservatives to realize they can’t escape judicial overreach without confronting it. The political arena must also assert its own interpretation of the Constitution.

Courts Don’t Have Final Say on Congress

The key point that seems to be overlooked is that courts can rule on specific cases. They might affirm, overturn, or erase judgments.

Yet, they don’t issue essential documents like passports, birth certificates, or citizenship proofs for children born on American soil.

That brings up further questions about kids who are already citizens under previous interpretations. We’re talking about future births here.

President Trump might consider using his veto authority and budgetary power to prevent left-leaning political outcomes sought through the judiciary.

Some might view this as a defiance of the Supreme Court.

As far as I know, the Supreme Court doesn’t issue birth certificates, nor can funds be allocated to them.

Even under the idea of judicial supremacy, courts can’t impose affirmative actions by other branches, like applying penalties from unconstitutional laws.

But if courts compel Congress for funding or demand executive branch involvement in civil rights, it’s essential that the political branch feels empowered to construct its own constitutional interpretations.

Abraham Lincoln highlighted this difference during his presidency. He acknowledged that while courts might resolve individual cases, their decisions shouldn’t automatically bind Congress or the president in future disputes.

Lincoln argued against a decision binding members of Congress or the President to policies that don’t align with it.

James Madison echoed similar views in his writings, discussing the “concurrent right to expound the Constitution.”

The branches were intended to act as a check on each other rather than blindly follow court orders.

Use Financial Leverage Wisely

Congress should extend its efforts beyond just halting citizenship documentation for children of illegal immigrants. It should also restrict jurisdiction and funding concerning federal lawsuits aimed at mandating disclosures.

Congress has significant control over the jurisdiction, structure, and funding of federal courts, including judicial spending.

This isn’t just theoretical; Supreme Court justices regularly seek funding from Congress.

Thus, Congress could limit resources for actions that contradict its policies.

This move would have obvious budgetary consequences and could be part of a broader settlement to prevent spending on both the documents and related lawsuits.

Such measures would also eliminate funding for:

• Visa diversity lotteries.
• Grants for sanctuary cities that give driver’s licenses to undocumented individuals.
• Census Bureau operations that count illegal immigrants for apportionment.
• Visas reinstated under a lower court’s injunction despite an executive order ban.

Some Republican leaders may attempt to sidestep budgetary provisions they consider irrelevant. But they have previously maneuvered around extending tax cuts even when it would raise the deficit.

These immigration controls could consequently lower federal expenditures.

Where there’s political will, procedural solutions exist.

Ultimately, the political arena must be ready to resist judicial overreach.

There will always be judges on the left willing to strike down even jurisdiction limitations and spending constraints as unconstitutional.

It’s vital for us to challenge the supremacy of the judiciary directly.

Many assume that since there’s no formal veto on Supreme Court decisions, the court must have the ultimate authority. But this perspective runs counter to the Constitution’s design.

No special veto was necessary; the judiciary had neither the purse nor the sword to enforce its will. It relied on other branches to carry out its judgments.

Hamilton famously noted that the judiciary “has neither power nor will, but only judges.”

All Republicans who are serious about reinstating American sovereignty need to come to the same realization: we can’t ignore judicial supremacy indefinitely; it must be faced directly.

Take a look at how proactively the Republican Party responded to the civil rights ruling. The focus seems to be on increasing mass deportations to prevent births from undocumented individuals on U.S. soil. Other lawmakers are interested in the implications for foreign tourists who are pregnant.

While these strategies are undoubtedly necessary, the contradiction is glaring. The very judges reshaping citizenship laws will likely block any serious immigration enforcement measures.

Why is the administration struggling with mass deportations? Because U.S. courts continue to intervene against ICE policies related to arrests, detention, and deportation, even for actions already approved by the Supreme Court.

For example, even with the Supreme Court backing a broad authority for the president to limit entry from specific countries, lower court judges persist in disrupting parts of that ruling.

It’s a similar issue if the government tries to stop counting illegal immigrants in the census.

If Republicans acquiesce to judicial supremacy without challenge, it’s likely that justices will rule that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all individuals to be counted in representation, regardless of their legal status.

This stance may even hold more weight than the argument asserting that all children born to undocumented individuals must gain citizenship.

A more pressing topic is sovereignty. If the GOP fails to amend its practices regarding citizenship revocation, misrepresentation, and justice obstruction in immigration enforcement, it will ultimately betray the commitments that propelled Trump’s political rise over a decade ago.

At that point, any future conventions or slogan updates will mean very little.

Lincoln famously warned during his debates with Douglas about the consequences of a free society yielding to absolute governmental obedience: “Whenever a free people renounces absolute obedience to any branch of government and retains no recourse to it, their liberty has been lost.”

This encapsulates the dilemma facing Congress: Will we pave the way for judicial supremacy or exercise the constitutional powers still available to the political branches?

The Supreme Court has made its position clear. Congress does not have to capitulate.