Latest news with #Afroyim
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Civics in the time of MAGA: Junior high kids get right what we adults have gotten wrong
So, I'm sitting here on a Thursday afternoon, watching a bunch of junior-high-school kids answering questions about American government and constitutional rights. And the sad irony is they know more about it than at least 90% of the politicians and elected officials I cover on a daily basis. It's called the National Civics Bee. It's like a spelling bee, but with civics. And Thursday was the state finals, held at the downtown Wichita headquarters of the Kansas Leadership Center. What made this a lot more fun than the usual 'bee' format was it was set up to allow for audience participation. Attendees (in a separate group) could play along with the competitors and test their own knowledge. I talked with Chris Green of the Leadership Center and we both agreed it would be fun to invite some of our elected officials next year to see see how they stack up against the sixth-, seventh- and eighth graders in the contest. I wonder how many would accept the challenge. The questions ranged from fairly easy, like . . . Q: A new education reform bill was introduced in Congress and successfully passed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate. What is the next step before the bill can become law? A: The president must sign the bill into law or take no action for 10 days, after which it will automatically become law. . . . to the detailed and difficult, for example. . . Q: In Federalist number 39, how does Madison distinguish between a federal and national government, and what does this distinction suggest about the nature of the Constitution as a product of the convention? A: Madison claims that the Constitution is both federal and national, with the House of Representatives representing the national and the Senate representing the federal, suggesting that the constitution will balance power between the state and national. (I got that one wrong. I picked the answer with the House representing the federal and Senate national). In addition to the multiple choice, the five finalists had to read from and answer judges' questions on an essay they wrote on a current issue, ranging from saving rural hospitals to reforming state policy on driver's license revocation. When all was said and done, Tanya Ramesh of Wichita won the competition, a $1,000 giant check, and a ticket to Washington for the national finals. Madeline Stewart of Overland Park took second and $500, while Zane Hoff of Salina got third and $250. I thought the Civics Bee was one of the coolest events I've been to in a while, so I hesitate to even bring this up, but some of the questions probably need updating in this era of MAGA. For instance: Q: How did Afroyim versus Rusk in 1967 affect the government's power regarding citizenship revocation? A: It limited the government's ability to to revoke citizenship. Afroyim v. Rusk was a landmark case that ruled: 'Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. ' The court's revised that stance since, to allow citizenship to be revoked (called denaturalization) if it was granted on false pretenses that would have prevented it in the first place, for example, terrorists or Nazi war criminals living under false identities. Now, denaturalization has become a key part of President Donald Trump's ongoing efforts to deport as many non-white immigrants as possible, whom he accuses (echoing a former world leader named Adolf) of 'poisoning the blood of our country.' During his first term, Trump created 'Operation Second Look,' a program to comb immigrant citizens' paperwork for misstatements or errors that would allow them to be denaturalized. This term, his top immigration advisor, Stephen Miller, has vowed to 'turbocharge' Operation Second Look, which could also lead to denaturalization and deportation of American-born children of immigrants, under Trump's executive order that purports to end birthright citizenship. Another Civics Bee question that caught my attention was this one: Q: Which statement best reflects the application of federalism in the Clean Air Act, considering the following quotation, 'the Clean Air Act represents a partnership between federal and state governments to improve air quality and to protect public health.' A: The federal government sets national standards, while states can implement stricter regulations based on local needs. That's the way it's supposed to work. But it brought to mind a recent press release I got from Kansas 1st District Rep. Tracey Mann, taking a victory lap over Congress rolling back California anti-pollution regulations. At the time, I remember thinking, 'What business is this of Tracey Mann's?' given that he represents a district that sprawls from Colorado to one county away from Missouri, where there are about four times as many cows as people and the largest city, Lawrence, would be a minor suburb of Los Angeles. What he knows of the pollution challenges facing California I'm guessing would fit on a microscope slide, but he couldn't care less as long as he can own some libs and send out a press release titled: 'Rep. Mann Reverses Biden Green New Deal Policies.' When I was growing up, we didn't have civics bees. We barely had any civics education. Truth be told, most of what we ever knew about the workings of government came from 'Schoolhouse Rock,' three-minute educational cartoons sandwiched between Jonny Quest and Scooby-Doo on Saturday mornings. Cue the music: 'I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.' I can't help thinking if we'd had civics bees back then, we wouldn't be in this mess we're in today. So it lifts my heart to see these earnest young kids competing over who knows the most about the people and ideals that built America. It gives me great hope that their future will be better than the present that my generation has handed them.
Miami Herald
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Despite Trump's claims, birthright citizenship has been settled by Supreme Court
Some 75 days into his presidency, Donald Trump has not given up on one of his first acts — to end birthright citizenship with the 'Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship' executive order. But there lies the problem, which includes over a century of U.S. Supreme Court precedent recognizing birthright citizenship and the fact a president cannot rewrite the Constitution. While he can propose an amendment, Trump evidently prefers a faster route. On March 13th, after four federal courts enjoined the implementation of the executive order, the Trump administration petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to allow him to enforce it. But there are two problems with Trump's tactic: First, the executive order is blatantly unconstitutional, as the first court to consider the issue found. Second, the filing's procedural posture is a delay tactic that will resolve nothing. In terms of the procedural posture of the case, Trump urges the justices to block the injunctions issued by federal district judges in Seattle, Maryland and Massachusetts. Trump argues lower federal courts cannot stop enforcing a nationwide executive order. While this argument has some support from two of the nine Supreme Court justices, this procedural argument does not address the executive order's legality. Trump's team is wrong asserting that: ▪ The 14th Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the U.S. ▪ The 14th Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the U.S. but not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' Indeed, every single U.S. Supreme Court decision considering the issue of birthright found all persons born in the U.S. are, in fact, U.S. citizens. The cases include Wong Kim Ark, Elk v. Wilkins, Perkins v. Elg and Afroyim v. U.S. citizens. The cases include Wong Kim Ark, Elk v. Wilkins, Perkins v. Elg, Afroyim v. RuskF and INS v Rios-Pineda. The Supreme Court in Afroyim prophetically rejected the very action Trump is trying to achieve with his executive order: One of the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to prevent both the executive and legislative branches of government from interfering with the concept of citizenship. More recently, the Court in Plyler v. Doe, rejected attempts like those being made by Trump, essentially stating that: Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' that 'within its jurisdiction' confirms the understanding that the 14th Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a state and reaches into every corner of a state's territory. These Court decisions should have ended the debate, but Trump's team argues because undocumented immigrants arrived by violating U.S. law, they are not subject to our laws. They argue that U.S. born children of the undocumented are by extension somehow not citizens. They look to the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' language of the 14th Amendment to ascertain the 'original meaning of the term.' But the original meaning of 'subject to the jurisdiction' was intended by Congress to mean being capable to be punished by the U.S. And, of course, both the undocumented and their children are subject to our laws because they can be punished if they violate them. The most disturbing aspect of Trump's effort is it punishes children for wrongs of their parents, a proposition rejected by the Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe: 'regulation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.' Indeed, not only do biblical references, such as Ezekiel 18, agree that children should not bear the sins of the father, a slew of federal courts have rejected punishing children for failures of their parents. Moreover, no president cannot rewrite the Constitution by executive order. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this issue. If they act as politicians and are motivated by what are political calls to curb Latin-American immigration, then Trump, as well as future presidents, will be able to rewrite our Constitution with a stroke of a pen: a sad day for separation of powers, democracy and over a century of Supreme Court precedents. Ediberto Roman is a professor at the Florida International University College of Law.
