Letters to the Editor: Trump’s argument against judicial injunctions is ‘an obvious unconstitutional dodge’

To the editor: The Trump administration’s argument against nationwide judicial injunctions with respect to the issue of birthright citizenship is, at best, tissue thin (“Justices skeptical of Trump plan to limit birthright citizenship but also injunctions that block it,” May 15).

The administration’s idea that all judicial push-back injunctions (yes, plural) to the Trumpian rewrite of birthright citizenship should be confined merely to the specific plaintiffs before the federal judges, the district of those federal judges or the particular state in which the judges preside is, by necessity, precluded by the wording of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That 14th Amendment language clearly confers not only a state citizenship upon the native-born, but also a federal U.S. citizenship. By that wording, any injunction issued preventing President Trump’s attempted rewriting of the 14th Amendment must necessarily carry country-wide scope.

This latest Trump appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is nothing but an obvious unconstitutional dodge and betrayal of his oath of office to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed.

David L. Clark, Saticoy, Calif.

..

To the editor: Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison from Paris on March 15, 1789, when delegates at the Constitutional Convention debated inclusion of a bill of rights: “In the arguments in favor of a declaration of rights, you omit one which has great weight with me, the legal check which it puts into the hands of the judiciary.” The Supreme Court may hobble the judiciary as a coequal branch of government.

The judiciary has helped advance liberty when Congress refused. Lower courts advanced liberty in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898) by upholding the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. They ruled that passage of California Proposition 14 in 1964, which would’ve allowed landlords and property sellers to racially discriminate, violated the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Lower courts started the liberation for interracial couples to live as husband and wife in Loving vs. Virginia (1967).

I hope future elections uphold the legal check of the judiciary against mob and monarchical rule as a threat to liberty.

Keith Ensminger, Merced, Calif.

..

To the editor: The justices of the Supreme Court should have told the Trump administration that it is not possible to amend the Constitution by executive order. Amending the Constitution is a legislative function that requires many steps. Clearly, President Trump wants to avoid that lengthy process because he views himself as ruler of the United States. That in itself violates the Constitution, as there are no kings in this country.

Glenn Shockley, Winnetka