Ancient History – just for fun
It hardly seems possible that it is less than three weeks since the presidential inauguration in Washington, DC. Almost everyone with reserved tickets for seats in even the best sections on the mall (Congressional families seating, Congressional press) were left holding “official memorabilia” because the cold moved the ceremony indoors. The 20,000 seat capacity Capital One arena was opened to ticket holders on a first-come-first-serve basis to watch the swearing in ceremonies, top entertainment, a mini parade, and a long personal appearance by the newly inaugurated President Trump. People started lining up at 5 a.min the 23 degree temperatures to get in. By 10:45 a.m., the last seats were filled with folks about midway in line. The rest dispersed throughout the few bars, hotels, restaurants and national museums that had stayed open for the day. They crowded all the most popular restaurants. But they said they had fun. “It was a special day, a historic day, the inauguration of our president, and the city and memorials looked beautiful, and it was just exciting to be there,” a wide range of visitors told this reporter.
Some attended balls – although there were only seven official ones on Monday night, which the president attended. Private groups and associations had galas on Friday and Saturday nights at top hotels and venues in DC, such as Café Milano in Georgetown. The new belles of the inaugural balls it turned out by non-scientific surveys were the H100 Latino Inaugural Ball at the Mayflower Hotel and the Official Hispanic Inaugural Ball at the Omni Shorham. Both were attended by hundreds of extremely elegant movers and shakers, especially new powers in the Trump administration like Marco Rubio (who is now already taking on his duties as the unanimously confirmed US Secretary of State). Hispanics in both parties are definitely in the spotlight these days. Hispanic heritage voters are among the most watched and analyzed; they are front and center of almost every issue – economics, education, immigration, energy, housing and defense. It doesn’t feel like identity politics.
So Now Come the Fast Tumult of Trump Executive Orders – as promised but not really expected
The President started signing his promised “from-the-first day” executive orders as soon as the inauguration celebrations finished at the arena. His signings- often with a personal snappy explanation of the order and a flourish of pens which he would give out – were also accompanied by a most unusual freewheeling and on-going press conference with a wide range of reporters who seemed encouraged to ask and get answers on any subject they wanted – all on Livestream.
Undoubtedly, many of the executive orders will be the subject of news from Washington for the next many months. As fast as they are announced and executed by the president, many also face legal challenges. Some may be eventually decided by the Supreme Court. But they might spark members of Congress to take up their dusty legislative mantels and firmly get back to negotiating, compromising and passing laws that will address the issues these temporary executive orders cover. It’s all part of our vibrant democratic republic way.
Here are two EOs that are drawing the most attention in early February:
Dismantling USAID and the Department of Education
Beginning the weekend of Feb. 1, the Trump Administration began aggressive moves to, as the Washington Post put it, “bring the foreign policy (independent funding apparatus the USAID) “in line with the President’s “America ‘first” approach to engaging with the world.” In the past three years, under the Directorship of former Obama UN Secretary Samantha Powers, an outspoken liberal, the USAID had supplied millions of dollars to projects now not supported by the Trump administration. By Feb. 4, some 10,000 employees and executives of USAID had been temporarily suspended. Most were given the choice to resign by Feb. 6 with an 8-month buy-out or face the probability that their jobs could be substantially changed or eliminated in the next months. Secretary of State Rubio cited plans to subsume the organization into the State Department.
The President cannot eliminate an agency in the executive department that Congress created. But he can eviscerate it by defunding and reorganizing. The news spotlight has now turned on the Department of Education that Trump promised to end because of its highly entrenched liberal programs. Like USAID, the Trump administration could defund large segments of DOE programs and move them to other departments or agencies such as Health or Labor within the executive jurisdiction.
Birthright Citizenship to Be Limited (not ended)
There seems to be much misunderstanding and politicization around this executive order. Almost everyone who writes about the order states that it “will end birthright citizenship.” But the 2-page order states very clearly that it intends to limit it. Nowhere does the EO say “end” it.
The misunderstanding comes from a misreading of the first sentence of the 14thAmendment. It reads “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.” Almost everyone reads the first nine words and assumes to claim birthright citizenship, one just needs to be born in the US, but that is wrong. The definitive word in that sentence is AND.
In fact, the first sentence of the 14th Amendment states that anyone claiming birthrights citizenship must fulfill TWO CONDITIONS:
1-Be born in the United States
2-Be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. At the time, there were four groups of people living in the US who officially were not subject to the jurisdiction and whose children born in the US did not have the right to citizenship. Two were changed – one by Congress (1921-US Indians) and one by the Supreme Court (1898-children of legal Chinese immigrants). But two remain (children of diplomats with full immunity, and of invaders). Trump’s executive order reflects proposals to Congress since 2010 that would make ineligible for birthright citizenship anyone born in the US whose parents have no lawful or legal authorization to be here or who are in the US on limited, temporary non-immigration permits, such as international students and tourists. It will not end birthright citizenship.
