The rule of law

  The supreme court is hearing a case concerning birthright citizenship today. Well, that's what the news will tell you that case is about anyway, but it really isn't. No, it is really about whether federal judges can override presidential authority. It's about those judges issuing injunctions to block executive orders. The decision to be made is whether a federal judge has authority outside of their own jurisdiction. Can they legislate on the "federal" level? That is to say, a national level. Can they issue what are called universal injunctions?

  This case has come about in response to Trumps executive order to end birthright citizenship. That's what the news will tell you, the Democrats and the left leaning media. You will hear the line about violating the constitution and the 14th amendment. The truth is they are not asking the court to decide on birthright citizenship, only on limiting the scope of the power of federal judges. Yes, it's a legal quagmire and one I don't pretend to have expert knowledge about. I have read several explanations about just what this is all about for sources without an agenda. They are out there if you search for them. The bottom line is Trump is not trying to end birthright citizenship with his executive orders. 

  These universal injunctions were issued because of the concerns of a number of illegal immigrants, that are pregnant and worried their children wouldn't automatically become citizens of the United States. That's a constitutional right! What we have are democrats protecting illegals by using our own judicial system. Todays arguments in the court are not about birthright citizenship, that isn't the question being asked. In fact there is no question being asked of the court at all. What is being asked is a modest request. The judge can only issue a judgement or order for the litigants in the case in front of them. The same thing the democrats are calling for with everyone to be deported receiving a trial. That, they maintain is only fair, in fact, a constitutional right. All Trump is saying is, federal judges would have to issue a judgement individually, in each case. He wants a ruling on this "universal" injunction. 

  As I said I'm no legal beagle but I can read. The democrats have been weaponizing the legal system for some time now. There latest is this issuing of universal injunctions, a practice that was relatively rare in the past. Federal trial courts issued more universal injunctions and temporary restraining orders in the month of February than the first three years of the Biden administration! It's getting out of control. The executive branch should not be overridden by a federal judge sitting in Maryland or Texas. That isn't how that should work. That is what this case is all about. 

  All of this is just another attempt to redefine the terms and conditions outlined in the constitution and the bill of rights. Can a federal judge issue a universal injunction to prevent the presidents' executive orders? Is that a part of their role? The supreme court is the final authority regarding the constitutionality of any legislation. That's what the constitution says. To a layman like myself that seems pretty clear. If that is in question, the supreme court has to decide that, not some random federal judge. As far as birthright citizenship goes that is also in question as a constitutional right. People born in the United States must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That depends upon whether they owe allegiance to, and are entitled to the protection of, the United States. Children born to the parents of those in our country illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, simply entitled the due process of law. But that is a different argument altogether from what is being brought before the court today. 

  Today the argument is about the scope of a federal judges authority. Can they issue a universal injunction to block the executive actions of the president? There is no specific federal statute allowing federal judges to issue universal injunctions. The authority comes from the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. It isn't in the constitution enshrined as some right, it isn't even a statute. That's why the court has to determine the scope of this authority. It's a ruling on a rule. A legal quagmire for certain, as are all legal disputes when it comes right down to it. That is the purpose of the supreme court, to provide that final statement, "because I said so, that's why" Does that say so belong to the president or to any one of 1,761 federal judges not on the supreme court? The answer is; the say so belongs to the congress of the United States of America. The say so belongs to you. 

 Here's the rules: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/federal_rules_of_civil_procedure_december_1_2022_0.pdf