U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 21, 2025 01:08 PM UTC

Colorado Challenges Trump's (First) Unconstitutional Penstroke

  • 6 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

One of the flurry of executive orders signed by newly sworn-in President Donald Trump yesterday was an order directly challenging the established interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which holds that any person born on American soil is an American citizen. This deliberately contentious executive order is intended to kick off a court battle, and within hours of the order being signed Colorado’s Attorney General Phil Weiser joined seventeen other states in challenging its constitutionality. AP reports via the Aurora Sentinel:

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser announced earlier today that Colorado would join the effort to ask the courts to snuff the attempt by Trump.

“The White House executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship is flatly unconstitutional,” Weiser said in a statement. “The idea that a president could override the Constitution with the stoke of a pen is a flagrant assault on the rule of law and our constitutional republic,” said Weiser.

More from AG Weiser’s release today:

President Trump yesterday issued an executive order fulfilling his repeated promise to end birthright citizenship, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 1401 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. To stop this unlawful action, Weiser is filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeking to invalidate the executive order and to stop any actions to implement it.

As the lawsuit explains, birthright citizenship dates back centuries—including to pre-Civil War America. Although the Supreme Court’s notorious Dred Scott decision denied birthright citizenship to the descendants of slaves, the Fourteenth Amendment plainly protects citizenship for children born in the country, honoring our national motto of e pluribus unum—out of many, we are one. Since adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has twice upheld birthright citizenship, regardless of the immigration status of the baby’s parents.

Under the President’s executive order, individuals who are stripped of their U.S. citizenship lose their most basic rights and are threatened with the risk of deportation. Under this order, these individuals will lose eligibility for a wide range of federal benefits programs, their ability to obtain a Social Security number and, as they age, to work lawfully. And they will lose their right to vote, serve on juries, and run for certain offices.

Of all of Trump’s executive orders yesterday pertaining to immigration, it’s the proposed rollback of citizenship rights for some children born in the United States most likely to provoke outrage due to its potential impact on individuals whose citizenship was not previously subject to question. The order was intentionally given 30 days before taking effect to allow for legal challenges that will almost certainly hold up implementation in the short run. Those affected by this order if it survives court challenges are in circumstances that many whose family includes recent immigrants have experienced, or at least can relate to.

Rep. Gabe Evans (R).

But as CBS4’s Shaun Boyd reports, freshman GOP Rep. Gabe Evans, who happens to be the grandson of a Mexican immigrant, remains 100% on the Trump Train:

Many of [Trump’s executive orders] focused on immigration – declaring a national emergency at the southern border, resuming construction of the border wall, ending birthright citizenship, and classifying drug cartels and certain gangs as foreign terrorist organizations subject to immediate arrest and deportation.

Colorado Congressman Gabe Evans, a Republican representing Colorado’s 8th Congressional District, says it’s about saving lives.

“And when we look at the death toll of Americans who have died as a result of things like fentanyl poisoning, it’s well in excess of the Americans who were killed in the attack on Sept. 11,” said Evans. [Pols emphasis]

Once again, and it’s a point that’s been made repeatedly as fentanyl deaths have become the subject of political blame-gaming in recent years, that most fentanyl brought into the United States comes through legal ports carried by American citizens. To use fentanyl importation as an excuse to justify Trump’s executive order challenging birthright citizenship makes no logical sense whatsoever, unless it’s Evans’ contention that babies born in America are somehow being used to smuggle drugs out of Mexico.

Invoking distractions like fentanyl and 9/11, Evans’ immediate goal is to forestall a rational discussion about Trump’s agenda.

The worse it gets, the harder it will be for Gabe Evans to make excuses.

Comments

6 thoughts on “Colorado Challenges Trump’s (First) Unconstitutional Penstroke

  1. Colorado Congressman Gabe Evans, a Republican representing Colorado’s 8th Congressional District, says it’s about saving lives.

    Shut the front door, I don't give a shit about FUCKING FENTANYL DEATHS! Gabriel there are more people who die of alcohol in Colorado every year than fentanyl. Gabby baby you know what… I'll order them a round. The only thing I care about is cheep goods (get your trade crap done) (figure out the lie you need so we still have farm labor) and tickets to Torremolinos under $500. So you want to pray for the fentanyl you want to cry they bought the non advertised poison great but don't bring up the drug war to get out of answering questions. Weak. You don’t want to talk about birth right citizenship because they might 9/11? How about telling us how you are going to limit immigration actions in Colorado to protect farmers… Isn’t that your constituency?

    And Democrats find farmers who are willing to complain. You don’t need to tell them you’re Democrats

  2. Good on Phil Weiser and the other co-signers of the challenge to the unconstitutional "executive order". As JiD notes, quoting the Contrarian, these are more like "executive edicts" – executive orders must be grounded in the law, and constitutional.

    Also in today's resistance:

    Trump had to sit through a sermon by a female Episcopal bishop, who asked him to "Have Mercy" on LGBTQ children and immigrants.  To answer your question, bullshit: That is what Jesus would do.

     

    1. I'm pretty sure Jesus would be at the turning over tables and whipping money lenders level at this point. Definitely not the pleading for mercy type of guy.

  3. While not a violation of the Constitution, Cheeto Mussolin's Imperial decree to leave WHO will also probably be challenged in the Federal Court System:

    “The executive order announces the immediate withdrawal from WHO, and he’s not seeking congressional authorization, and he’s also not giving the required one year’s notice,” says Lawrence Gostin, a professor in public health law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC, and one of the coauthors of the 2020 Lancet article. “In my view, this is reckless and it’s lawless, and it needs to be challenged in court.”

    According to a 1948 joint resolution passed by both houses of Congress, any such withdrawal requires the US to provide the WHO with one year’s notice, but it appears that Trump’s intentions are to withdraw immediately and do so without seeking congressional approval.

    https://www.wired.com/story/trump-plan-to-leave-the-who-health-disaster/?_sp=3e4a168a-c046-41ec-8293-6dc60961bda4.1737553364141

    Because, y'know, leaving an Organization responsible for tracking & responding to pandemics is always a good idea, because, reasons. 

    1. The US leaving will (presumably) leave a hole in the budget. "WHO spokesperson Tarik Jasarevic said the U.S. contributed 18% of the organization’s budget in 2023."  STAT News column says

      The WHO needs deep reforms. But by exiting the WHO and pulling funding, the U.S. loses any leverage to enact those reforms. And doing so would weaken the WHO, leaving the U.S. less safe.

      Much of the problem stems from its own confusion around its mission. Is it a membership organization with 194 member-states, most of which are low- and middle-income? Or is it the world’s public health agency?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

86 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!