米兰体育

The beginning of President Donald Trump鈥檚 second term has been marked by a surge in executive orders, some of which have generated intense political and legal debates. At the time of publication, Trump has signed more than 50 orders, ranging from attempts to delay a TikTok ban to withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization. But among these, several have faced serious pushback.One of the most controversial was his executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, a constitutional right that guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Constitutional battle over birthright citizenshipWilliam Davenport Mercer, a distinguished lecturer at the University of Tennessee's law school, believes the issue of birthright citizenship is settled law. 鈥淚t鈥檚 settled, in my opinion,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t is and has been settled law of the land.鈥滿ercer, who specializes in U.S. legal and constitutional history, pointed to the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment. This clause enshrines the principle of jus soli, meaning the right of anyone born within the U.S. to automatically become a citizen.Multiple Supreme Court cases, including Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, have reaffirmed this principle and the idea that birthright citizenship is established in American law.Trump鈥檚 administration, however, argues that the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted and applied too broadly 鈥� specifically, they believe it doesn鈥檛 extend to children of unauthorized immigrants or parents on visas.Mercer disagrees. As do at least two federal judges.First, on Jan. 23, a Seattle-based judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan issued a temporary restraining order on the executive order.The legal pushback continued on Feb. 5, when Judge Deborah L. Boardman of Maryland, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump鈥檚 order indefinitely. Mercer explained that while efforts to abolish or reform birthright citizenship are not new, this is the first time he鈥檚 seen it attempted through an executive order, which he reiterated is likely an unfeasible approach.Video below: White House files response to lawsuit on birthright citizenship鈥淚n recent years, we've seen there have been calls to amend the Constitution. There have been calls to amend the statutes in kind of different ways to try to get at reexamining birthright citizenship,鈥� Mercer said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 see (executive orders) as the proper vehicle for doing this. If you don鈥檛 like the birthright citizenship portion of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, you have to amend the Constitution.鈥漁ther executive orders issued by Trump that have either been stayed by a judge or are being challenged in the courts include the ban on gender-affirming care for youths, the ban on transgender individuals in the military, the transfer of transgender women to men鈥檚 prisons, the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, the closure of the border for asylum seekers and the stripping of job protections for federal workers.Trump鈥檚 executive orders have also informed other actions that Mercer believes could be unconstitutional.Federal funding conundrumBorn from Trump鈥檚 orders to end climate initiatives and DEI programs, his administration issued a memorandum halting all federal spending to ensure that every dollar aligned with Trump鈥檚 agenda.The sudden decision sent shockwaves across the country, causing disruptions in Medicaid and leaving millions uncertain about losing access to housing, child care and food.After the flurry of confusion, the administration quickly reversed the funding freeze, rescinding the memo on Jan. 29.However, a federal judge was skeptical of the administration鈥檚 change of heart, issuing a temporary restraining order on the funding freeze just in case.鈥淭he rescission, if it can be called that, appears to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to prevent this court from granting relief,鈥� wrote Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.AliKhan, who was appointed by Biden, further stated that the executive branch was overstepping its constitutional boundaries and infringing on the legislative branch鈥檚 power over federal appropriations.鈥�(The Office of Management and Budget) attempted to wrest the power of the purse away from the only branch of government entitled to wield it,鈥� AliKhan wrote.Yet, a federal judge in Rhode Island, who also ordered a restraining order on the frozen funds, found that the Trump administration was defying his order and was still withholding congressionally-approved disimbursements.On Feb. 10, U.S. District Judge John McConnell, an appointee of President Barack Obama, doubled down on his order, directing the administration to once again release the funds.Lawyers with the Department of Justice have appealed McConnell's decision.Mercer, who spoke with Hearst Television before the rulings, concurred with both judges, citing laws passed during President Richard Nixon鈥檚 administration, such as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which codified the distinction in fiscal powers between Congress and the president.Mercer also highlighted Justice Robert H. Jackson鈥檚 influential concurring opinion in the 1952 case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which overturned President Harry Truman鈥檚 attempt to nationalize the country鈥檚 steel mills. Essentially, the opinion stated that a president鈥檚 executive powers are at their strongest when supported by Congress and at their weakest when in opposition, as in the case of suspending funds already approved and appropriated by Congress.鈥淚 think the (Trump) administration probably ran afoul of that,鈥� Mercer said. 鈥淭his is a legislative, congressional power, and they鈥檝e said it in a congressional law, and so I think that鈥檚 a problem.鈥滶xecutive orders, a historical presidential toolIt remains uncertain whether Trump can implement these orders and memorandums, but Mercer asserts that, based on current constitutional interpretation, the president is within his rights to make the attempt.鈥淎rticle 2 (of the Constitution) governs the executive鈥檚 power,鈥� Mercer said. 鈥淭here's nothing in it that explicitly says the president can issue executive orders, but the president does have certain independent constitutional powers, most notably the obligation to faithfully execute the laws.鈥� Although executive orders are not laws 鈥� only Congress has the authority to create laws 鈥� they are a powerful tool for the president to direct the enforcement of existing laws and shape policy within the executive branch. Executive orders are not uncommon, either. Mercer argued that some of the most influential actions in American history were executive orders, including the Emancipation Proclamation, funding for the Manhattan Project, the internment of Japanese Americans, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Every president, except William Henry Harrison, has issued at least one executive order during their tenure. Some presidents even issued more than 1,000, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, according to records. 鈥淭here have been other presidents who came into office and hit the ground running,鈥� Mercer said. 鈥淥ne that I鈥檝e seen a number of commentators mention 鈥� the first 100 days of FDR鈥檚 administration鈥� You could say that perhaps there are some analogies there (with Trump).鈥� However, Mercer cautioned against making a direct comparison between Trump鈥檚 second term and Roosevelt鈥檚 presidency, pointing to the key difference in the speed and meticulousness of their approaches.鈥淭hough FDR had a number of his early attempts at recovery (from the Great Depression)... taken out by the courts, some of his signature pieces, they weren鈥檛 done this quickly,鈥� Mercer said. 鈥淭hese were codes drafted by lawyers and put together and such, and the court says, 鈥楾he legislature has given you way too much power under this, so we鈥檙e going to negate this executive order,鈥� and that sort of thing.鈥滶xpanding powers of the executive branch While Trump's fast-paced executive order process may be unlike that of past presidents, Mercer said, the idea of pushing the limits of executive power is not unprecedented.From Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation to President Barack Obama's establishment of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), various presidents have confronted constitutional boundaries via executive order. Mercer suggested that Trump's approach could be a reflection of the country's shifting constitutional order, driven either by the Supreme Court's ideological tilt, the changing will of the electorate, or, most likely, both. He pointed to the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade as a significant example of this shift.鈥淩oe is a big one. But that didn't just show up because the court made it. That was because of a whole lot of popular advocacy on the ground for a number of decades,鈥� Mercer said. 鈥淎nd so those kind of work together. And I think once things start to move, I mean, who knows what 鈥� I think we're potentially in a rather transformative period.鈥漈his shift in perspective, Mercer added, might explain why Trump and others are revisiting what was once considered settled law. 鈥淭his is just pure opinion, but it does seem like there's a sense that a lot of things that were settled don't necessarily have to be, or there's an opportunity to revisit things that are settled law in order to maybe get a more favorable ruling this time,鈥� Mercer said.Mercer explained that this evolving legal landscape suggests that the U.S. is at a critical juncture. Whether it's the interpretation of the 14th Amendment or other long-standing principles, the courts may be more willing to reconsider them in light of shifting political and social currents.As Trump鈥檚 second term continues, the implications of these legal battles go beyond individual policies, challenging the nation鈥檚 foundational principles and the very nature of constitutional interpretation itself.鈥淭his is bigger than, like, living constitution versus original intent. It's bigger than that,鈥� Mercer said. 鈥淎nd I think we're in a moment now where we're recognizing that so much of what makes up our constitutional order, our constitutional universe as we know it today, I think people are realizing that so much of it, while it is based on the Constitution and is based on formal law, is also very customary.鈥滺e added, 鈥淣one of this is set in stone. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is in the eye of the beholder.鈥�