To the editor: I’m infinitely grateful that the right-wing Supreme Courtroom, and never the right-wing political apologist Josh Hammer, will probably be deciding the constitutionality of President Trump’s royal decree purporting to trump 157 years of considerably settled regulation. (“Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship is legally sound,” Opinion, Jan. 30)
It solely turns into unsettled (or, per Hammer, “foolish” and “useless incorrect”) by both ignoring or vaporizing constitutional readability, Supreme Courtroom precedent and congressional law-making.
The courtroom’s Wong Kim Ark resolution in 1898 affirmed birthright citizenship, utilized it to the kids of immigrant mother and father “domiciled right here” and was not written with disappearing ink.
The very best Hammer can muster is that the Supreme Courtroom didn’t “correctly perceive” the 14th Modification, the case was “wrongly determined” (in different phrases, Hammer doesn’t prefer it), and the justice who penned the choice “inexplicably reversed course” from prior statements.
Hammer says a 1982 case (Plyler vs. Doe), which comparatively lately held that the Ark resolution meant exactly what it mentioned, needs to be ignored as a result of the reference was in a footnote and subsequently not binding (Hammer is just flat-out incorrect right here).
Lastly, what is really “foolish” is the thought {that a} president can change the Structure and citizenship guidelines by mere fiat and fountain pen. The emperor’s new garments are lavish, extravagant and nonexistent.
Roland Wrinkle, Newhall
The author is an lawyer.
..
To the editor: Hammer’s op-ed article lauding Trump’s government order ostensibly nixing the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Modification misses the constitutional boat.
The problem is just not, as Hammer avers, whether or not the president is true or incorrect in his constitutional evaluation of the topic clause. (Hammer agrees with Trump’s evaluation; I take subject with it.)
It’s, moderately, whether or not within the first place Trump has the authority via an government order to amend or in any other case alter the Structure. Manifestly, he doesn’t. Solely by prescribed votes via direct congressional motion (or via a constitutional conference) after which upon acceptable ratification by state legislatures could the Structure be modified.
Presently, Trump could also be very highly effective — however he’s not that highly effective.
Scott Roth, Sherman Oaks
The author is an lawyer.
