It seems contradictory that an adult would make a concerted effort to instill in a child the ideas of correct behavior, playing by the rules, and exhibiting good sportsmanship, yet fail to practice what they preach when they choose to play by their own one-sided rules in certain situations. Rather than abiding by the established norms, procedures, and regulations set in place for everyone to follow, they prefer to change previously established rules and narratives to suit their own advantage. As a result, the true meaning and purpose behind societal standards, even our U.S. Constitution, are being changed to promote ulterior motives and agendas.
The U.S. Constitution was meant to be a timeless document with guidelines, but the Founders recognized that a changing society means the law of the land will require future amendments. While more than 11,000 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been proposed since 1789, only 27 have been ratified. In the Bill of Rights, drafted by James Madison, the first 10 amendments were added to guarantee individual liberties and place limits on the power of the federal government.
They were drafted and introduced to the First Congress by Madison in response to pressure from anti-Federalists who feared the implications of having a strong central government. The original Second Amendment was written during a different era, shaped by militias and the fear of slave uprisings. The Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Southern leaders and anti-Federalists were worried that the new federal government would weaken or disarm state militias that were used for slave patrols and shock troops against revolts. Madison was referring to the ability of white civilian volunteers being organized by the state to police, terrorize, and crush Black resistance.
Today, people in powerful positions with ulterior motives are determined to erase the original context and redefine the meaning of Constitutional amendments to defend their versions of liberty, citizenship, and democracy. The success in changing the meaning behind the Second Amendment cannot be ignored. For most of U.S. history, courts did not read the Second Amendment as a personal right to own any gun you wanted — i.e., semiautomatic rifles. The Supreme Court repeatedly treated it as related to militias and public order, not as a shield for individual gun possession. The shift began in the late 20th century. The meaning changed because the National Rifle Association and its allies had ulterior motives for gun rights, thereby launching a long and successful campaign to change the narrative.
First, it was the Second Amendment; now it’s the 14th. The president, who attempted to abolish birthright citizenship by executive order, believes that the Constitution does not guarantee automatic citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil. Many agree with the president’s assessment and his bid to upend birthright citizenship in our nation. Despite their grandstanding when claiming to “uphold the Constitution,” they want to play by their own rules when defining who automatically receives citizenship. Changing the rules concerning naturalization and birthright citizenship becomes a target for those fearful of a changing nation and what it could mean when the United States eventually becomes a majority-minority nation. Redefining what it means to be an “American” is a power strategy. It has always been an issue of national identity for the overall purpose of exclusion and maintaining control.
Citizenship in the United States is a legal status that entitles citizens to specific rights, duties, protections, and benefits. Citizenship serves as a foundation of fundamental rights derived from and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The 14th Amendment makes it very clear in its definition of citizenship. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
According to this description, there are two primary pathways to American citizenship, as specified in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Birthright citizenship is the process by which persons born within the territorial limits of the United States are presumed to be citizens. Secondly, naturalization is the process by which an eligible legal immigrant applies for citizenship and is ultimately accepted. The Supreme Court is currently hearing oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, in which the question of birthright citizenship is argued before the highest court. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to shut down the policy debate and high-power move by those who maintain a white supremacy agenda.
As the Trump administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, made his arguments before the court, Chief Justice John Roberts replied: “It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.” Those are powerful and surprising words coming from a conservative on the bench who has presided over the end of the rule of law in America. We need Chief Justice Roberts and the majority of the Supreme Court to get this one right.
Marshall is the founder of the faith-based organization TRB: The Reconciled Body and author of the book “God Bless Our Divided America.”