By Ed Malik, A | ed@ddnewsonline.com | posted January 28th, 2025
“First, I will declare a national emergency at our southern border. All illegal entry will immediately be halted and we will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back from the places from which they came…As Commander in Chief, I have no higher responsibility than to defend our country…”
Subscribe To The Best Team In Conservative, Business, Technology, Lifestyle And Digital News Realtime! support@ddnewsonline.com
With the above statement, which are excerpts of his historic acceptance speech at the Capitol One Arena, Washington DC, just few minutes after he was inaugurated as the 47th president of United States of America, Donald John Trump, outlined his broad agenda which he aptly called ‘The Golden Age of America’, which aims to restore America to its pride of place as first among nations, he grabbed his pen and started signing a stack of Executive Orders (EOs) right there before the audience and later, issued more from the Oval Office.
For those who carefully followed his campaign trail, President Trump is making it clear that his administration will prioritize America First policies from day one in complete deference to his Make America Great Again (MAGA) ideology.
Thus, Trump set a breakneck pace on the first day of his second term, taking numerous executive actions and rescinding 78 executive orders from his predecessor, while also pardoning roughly 1,500 people charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, breach at the U.S. Capitol. These executive orders were just the beginning. As the ink dries on these orders, their impact will be felt across the US and other nations.
Let’s first understand what an Executive Order (EO) is – a directive the president issues, typically, in the first few weeks in office, to manage or implement his own policy thrust on some aspects of federal government. Dishing out EOs is a common feature by new presidents in the United States but has gained currency in many countries. The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders derives from multiple sources, including constitutional and extant discretional necessities.
For instance, article 2 of the US Constitution gives a president, broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the federal government’s executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on expressed or implied articles of the constitution which gives a window to a president to exercise discretionary power in the interest of the nation.
But what is not publicly acknowledged is that, the vast majority of EOs are proactive suggestions or policy roadmaps from federal agencies requiring urgent and pragmatic attention by the president.
Subscribe To The Best Team In Conservative, Business, Technology, Lifestyle And Digital News Realtime! support@ddnewsonline.com
A clear, albeit, definitive check to any prospective abuse is that, like all legislative statutes, regulations, edicts and announcements, they must be rooted in the constitution, in the context of judicial review, which may uphold or overturn the orders if they’re lacking in constitutional support. Some EOs, over time, may be amended or ratified by a legal Act and or, discarded.
In every election circle, there has been a subsisting conversation on the impact of a president’s EOs, which are executive in nature, on the legislature’s capacity to enact laws nay the Judiciary’s prerogative of interpretation. Policy analyst agree that EOs only have significant influence over the internal affairs of government on emergent scenarios like deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced in dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general, fine-tuning policy choices that are needed to implement broad statutes.
Only the president can issue an EO, and once issued, it remains in force until it is canceled, revoked, adjudicated unlawful, or expire on their terms. At any time, the president may revoke, modify or make exceptions from any executive order, whether the order was made by the current president or a predecessor.
It is in this nexus, that we can have a clear glean of the several EOs that president Trump has issued since Jan. 20, immediately after his inauguration and sound the gong for legal experts to do a critical inquisition of their framework of action, within specific and extant statutes of the US.
The first batch of EOs were compartmentalized under the following sub-heads; Immigration and Border, Federal Workers, Gender and DEI, Energy and The Environment, Military and National Security, Taxes and Tariffs, Federal Government Changes and Other Executive Actions.
The EOs that sparked public debate includes ending birthright citizenship, official recognition of two genders (which effectively ends diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in the federal government), withdrawal from WHO and climate change Accord, Tax Reviews, creation of Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the undoing of 78 of former President Joe Biden’s executive actions, executive orders, and presidential memoranda giving 75 days reprieve for micro social networking site, Tik-tok and another, removing vaccine for Covid-19 as a condition for Green Card applicants. And to conspiracy theorists, a big one; an EO ordering the release of records related to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy (JFK), Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (RFK), and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
But of intense public interest is the EO on Ending Birthright Citizenship. The order specifically directed government agencies to stop issuing citizenship documentation for babies born in the US to parents without legal status. The order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” aims to end birthright citizenship.
This order, will also impact children born to mothers with temporary lawful presence in the US, such as those on student or tourist visas, if the father is not a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. It’s essential to note that this policy will only apply to individuals born within the US after 30 days of the order, which would be from February 19, 2025.
Subscribe To The Best Team In Conservative, Business, Technology, Lifestyle And Digital News Realtime! support@ddnewsonline.com
A US Constitutional Law attorney Alan Dershowitz, weighed into the ongoing conversation and possible legal challenge on the broad implication of the orders, especially the birthright citizenship, in the context of US’ constitution articles concerning legal birthright, warning that this particular Executive Order might not survive in Court.
In an episode of ‘The Dershow’ shortly after the EO on ending birthright citizenship was signed by Trump, a skeptical Dershowitz said that while he believes birthright citizenship was “a dumb idea,” he doesn’t think Trump can nullify it through executive action.
Barely hours into Trump’s presidency, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) launched a lawsuit over the ending birthright citizenship EO, arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment. The case was filed by the ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Asian Law Caucus, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and Legal Defense Fund on behalf of organizations with members whose babies born on U.S. soil will be denied citizenship under the order, including New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Make the Road New York. The lawsuit charges the Trump administration with flouting the Constitution’s dictates, congressional intent, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent.
It is instructive to highlight that Trump, in his first missionary journey to the White House had touted the idea of tinkering with the birthright citizenship but didn’t carry it through. Referencing that idea, Dershowitz said, “He said he was gonna end birthright citizenship. I think birthright citizenship was a dumb idea. If I were writing a constitution, I don’t think I would put birthright citizenship in the constitution”. “But let me read to you what the Constitution says and then you can make your decision as to whether it applies.”
Dershowitz then quoted Section One of the 14th Amendment, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Speaking about the term “born,” Dershowitz said that “there’s no ambiguity about that word.” He also highlighted a key part, adding, “And here’s the critical clause: and, not or, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
That portion about being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is where the issue lies, Dershowitz said. The provision was passed after the Civil War to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford, which excluded African Americans from eligibility for U.S. citizenship solely based on race.
Dershowitz said that it would likely take congressional action to clear up this point of contention. He assessed, saying, “The courts will ultimately decide that, but my best view, as somebody who studied the Constitution for a long time, is that, at the very least, it would take congressional legislation to make a person born in the United States a non-citizen by making that person not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Subscribe To The Best Team In Conservative, Business, Technology, Lifestyle And Digital News Realtime! support@ddnewsonline.com
Some legal scholars suspect that Trump is testing the issue and intends for it, by design, to move through the courts, ultimately landing before Supreme court of the United States (SCOTUS). As popular writer Kurt Schlichter pointed out, “it is going to be heard, and it is going to be analyzed. That’s how things should work. You make arguments, and then judges consider them in the context of precedent and rule accordingly.”
For now, all eyes are on Trump, globally, to see what happens next.
NOTE: This article was first published in This Day Jan. 28, 2025.
Ed Is a highly versatile journalist, with over 30 years’ experience covering the whole gamut of mass communication, and contributes regularly to several media platforms. He is editor-in-chief of DDNEWSONLINE.COM and can also be followed on X: edmalik06.