Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
(Summary of a chapter in my latest book: The Constitutional Presidency of Donald J. Trump)
The debate over birthright citizenship centers on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which states that a person must be both born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction to be a citizen. Modern interpretations ignore the second requirement and depart from the original intent of the framers.
Drawing on the congressional debates of 1866, the authors of the Citizenship Clause (Senators Lyman Trumbull and Jacob Howard) made clear that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant complete political allegiance, not mere physical presence. This understanding was rooted in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which required that a person be “not subject to any foreign power.”
President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 followed this original meaning by denying automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors. Contrary to critics, Trump was not creating new law but enforcing the longstanding constitutional and statutory framework.
The Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark has been misinterpreted. The ruling was based on the fact that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were legal permanent residents, satisfying the jurisdiction requirement. Several other Supreme Court cases (Elk v. Wilkins, Minor v. Happersett, Weedin v. Chin Bow, Rogers v. Bellei) reinforce the principle that allegiance, not geography, determines citizenship.
Congress bypassed constitutional limits with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, illustrating how political branches sometimes attempt to change constitutional meaning through legislation rather than amendment; revealing the inconsistency of Trump’s critics.
The Founding Fathers, and the framers of the Citizenship Clause were concerned about divided allegiance, from the threat of Tories during the Founding era to modern national‑security concerns such as birth tourism, to the original purpose of the Citizenship Clause.
Trump’s stance reflects constitutional fidelity, while progressive defenses of universal birthright citizenship are driven more by political incentives than by constitutional principle. From an originalist perspective, ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors is not only constitutional… it is necessary.
For full analysis, Patron Members visit “Full Constitutional Analysis of the Birthright Citizenship Debate“
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
To Become a Patron Member, go to our Membership Page
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The United States Supreme Court recently struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end the unconstitutional concept of birthright citizenship. According to the High Court, mere presence on American soil at birth guarantees citizenship; a decision that fundamentally undermines the original intent of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
In a split decision, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett to form a 5-4 majority, effectively granting citizenship to virtually everyone born within U.S. borders regardless of their parents’ allegiance or legal status.
At the heart of this case lies the proper interpretation of the Citizenship Clause’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The majority interprets “jurisdiction” as merely “legal jurisdiction,” being subject to American laws while physically present in the country. However, the authors of the clause intended “political jurisdiction,” which they defined as “not subject to a foreign power.”
The historical record is clear on this point. The same authors of the Citizenship Clause also sponsored the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which uses identical language. During congressional debates, Senators Jacob Howard and Lyman Trumbull explicitly defined “jurisdiction” as “full jurisdiction,” meaning not subject to any foreign power. They clarified that mere birth on American soil was insufficient for citizenship, specifically exempting “Indians not taxed” and “children of aliens, foreigners, diplomats, ambassadors and other foreign ministers and consuls” from automatic citizenship despite their birth on U.S. soil (Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866).
Despite this historical evidence, Chief Roberts claimed there was “scant evidence” to support the government’s originalist definition. Instead, he concluded that “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause” and are therefore “citizens at birth.”
In his powerful dissent, Justice Samuel Alito called the ruling both “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court” and “a serious mistake.” “Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption,” Alito argued, “shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
Justice Clarence Thomas similarly criticized the decision, stating that it “devalues citizenship” and that the majority’s historical account was “not historically accurate.” He lamented that the ruling “adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”
The majority’s reasoning relies heavily on English common law, noting that under early English law, children born in Britain automatically became British subjects. “This view crossed the Atlantic with the colonists, and was adopted with little fanfare after the Revolution,” Roberts wrote. However, this comparison is deeply flawed. The majority conveniently ignores that under British law, while birth on imperial soil granted subject status, full rights, including inheritance rights, were reserved for “natural born subjects,” which required having a British father at the time of birth. This distinction demonstrates that British law itself recognized different levels of “jurisdiction” based on parental allegiance.
The Court also leaned heavily on the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where Ark argued that since he was born in San Francisco he was a citizen. While proponents of expansive birthright citizenship cite this case as precedent, they conveniently ignore a crucial detail: Wong’s parents had established permanent domicile in the United States, thereby satisfying the “full jurisdiction” requirement. This nuance is ignored because it contradicts the leftist narrative of unconditional birthright citizenship.
The 14th Amendment was originally adopted to repudiate the Supreme Court’s infamous 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to Black people whose ancestors were brought to America as slaves. The Citizenship Clause was specifically written to reverse the language of that ruling. The authors of the clause, however, also knew it would be used as the definition for citizenship.
Like Roe v. Wade, this decision is not set in stone and can be reversed. I believe that day may come when our enemies use this ruling to accelerate their invasion of our country through illegal migration and birth tourism. When that crisis reaches its breaking point, perhaps the Court will finally recognize its mistake and restore citizenship to its rightful place – not as a mere accident of geography, but as the precious inheritance of those who owe their allegiance solely to the United States of America.
Or, at least that is what I am hoping.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
It was a sweltering June of 1776. The city was alive with tension and possibility. Philadelphia, the heart of revolutionary America, buzzed with the energy of men wrestling with the most consequential question of their time: Should the American colonies break away from the mightiest empire on Earth?
Into this charged atmosphere stepped the Second Continental Congress, a gathering of brave delegates who had already risked everything by merely meeting. Now, they faced an even greater decision. With the weight of history upon their shoulders, they turned to a 33-year-old Virginian; a tall, red-haired man, with a mind as sharp as any lawyer and a pen as mighty as any sword. Thomas Jefferson, they tasked, with crafting the justification for America’s independence from Great Britain.
Picture Jefferson as he retreated from the bustling streets of Philadelphia to a quiet, rented parlor on the second floor of Jacob Graff’s newly built brick house at 7th and Market Streets. This was no grand office, no marble chamber. Just a simple room where history would be made. Armed with a portable writing desk he had designed himself, Jefferson worked in deliberate isolation, knowing that the words he put to paper might determine the fate of millions yet unborn.
For two weeks, this quiet room became a crucible of revolutionary thought. Jefferson poured over ideas from philosophers like John Locke, whose writings on natural rights had ignited minds across the colonies. He drew from colonial pamphlets and the collective grievances that had been building for years. But he did more than compile arguments—he wove together grievances and revolutionary ideals into something extraordinary. Jefferson set out to craft not just a political brief, but an enduring piece of literature that would capture what he called the “American mind.”
In those long hours of concentration, with Philadelphia’s summer heat pressing in, Jefferson reached deep into his understanding of human nature and divine truth. He knew that mere legal arguments would not suffice; what was needed was a document that would speak to the heart as well as the mind, that would articulate not just why America should be free, but why freedom itself mattered to all humanity.
Before presenting his “original Rough draught” to the full Continental Congress, Jefferson shared his words with a five-man committee that included two of the most brilliant minds of the age: John Adams, the passionate advocate from Massachusetts, and Benjamin Franklin, the wise and witty polymath from Pennsylvania. These three giants of revolutionary thought sat together, reviewing Jefferson’s work, making roughly two dozen edits to his text. They refined phrases and ensured the tone was perfectly calibrated to rally the colonies; not just to anger, but to purposeful action built upon the foundation of timeless truth.
When the document finally reached the floor of Congress, the delegates spent two days debating and heavily editing Jefferson’s writing. They slashed roughly a quarter of his original draft, including an impassioned passage he had written condemning King George III for perpetuating the slave trade. Though Jefferson sat frustrated by the heavy red-lining, his words, his thoughts, his carefully crafted arguments being cut away, the core message remained intact, shining through like a beacon in the night: that all people possess unalienable rights, chief among them Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Then came the moment that would echo through eternity. On July 2, 1776, Congress officially voted to sever ties with Great Britain. The decision was made, the course set. But there was still the matter of making it official, of putting into words what their hearts had already decided. Two days later, on July 4, they formally adopted the edited text of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.
Think of that moment. Fifty-six men, representatives of thirteen diverse colonies, putting their names to a document that declared them traitors to the Crown and patriots to a new ideal. They knew the risks. They knew the price they might pay. Yet they signed anyway, with courage that still takes our breath away centuries later.
The elegant words Jefferson had penned in that quiet parlor would soon be galloped on horseback across the thirteen colonies, printed in broadsheets and read aloud in town squares. They would rally troops facing impossible odds, spark a revolution that would shake the world, and establish principles that would guide not just America but nations yet unborn.
From that simple room in Philadelphia came a document that would change the course of human history. It began as the work of one man in isolation, but became the voice of a people yearning to be free. It started as a justification for rebellion, but ended as a declaration of human dignity that transcended time and place.
As we reflect on those momentous days in June and July of 1776, let us remember that freedom is not born in battle alone, but in the quiet rooms where thoughtful souls dare to dream of a better world. Let us remember Thomas Jefferson, sitting at his portable desk, crafting words that would outlive empires and inspire generations. And let us remember that the Declaration of Independence was not just the birth certificate of a nation, but a testament to the power of ideas to transform the world.
The tale of that Philadelphia parlor reminds us that greatness often comes from humble beginnings, that the most powerful revolutions can begin with a single person putting pen to paper, and that the words we speak today might just echo through the ages, changing lives we will never meet, in times we can scarcely imagine.
This is our heritage as Americans. Not just the battles won or the territories claimed, but the ideas articulated in that quiet room, ideas that continue to guide us, challenge us, and inspire us to build a more perfect union. May we never forget the power of those words, and may we always strive to live up to their promise.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Let’s journey back through the mists of time to the very beginning of our great American story. It begins not with a roar, but with a whisper. A whisper of hope that carried across the vast, tempestuous Atlantic Ocean, carried in the hearts of brave souls who dared to dream of a new beginning.
Picture if you will those early colonists, huddled on wooden ships that seemed but fragile toys against the mighty expanse of water. These were not adventurers seeking gold or glory, but families seeking something far more precious: religious liberty. They left behind the familiar shores of England, where their faith made them outcasts, for an unknown land where they might worship as their hearts directed. They dreamed of a place where the soil was plentiful enough to feed their children, where the long arm of the British Empire could not reach into their daily lives and dictate the terms of their existence.
These pioneers arrived on shores that must have seemed both terrifying and magnificent. With little more than the clothes on their backs and the tools they carried, they began the monumental task of taming a wilderness. With blood, sweat, and tears, they cleared forests, built homes, planted crops, and established communities. From those first footholds at Jamestown and Plymouth, colonies sprang up and flourished all along the Atlantic Coast – each with its own character, yet all sharing the common thread of hard-won independence.
As the colonies grew and prospered, something remarkable began to stir in the hearts of the people. A Great Awakening swept through the settlements like a cleansing fire, reminding them that only a virtuous people are capable of true freedom. In meeting houses and open fields, preachers spoke of liberty not just as a political ideal, but as a divine right endowed by the Creator himself. This spiritual renaissance laid the foundation for what was to come, for it taught the colonists that their rights came not from any king or parliament, but from God himself.
But as virtue flourished, so too did tyranny across the sea. The British Empire, once a distant presence, began to tighten its grip. Taxes were imposed without representation; taxes on tea, on paper, on every aspect of colonial life. Red-coated British soldiers marched through colonial streets, their presence a constant reminder that the freedoms the colonists had worked so hard to establish could be taken away at the whim of a monarch an ocean away.
The people had grown too strong, too independent, too American to simply bow their heads. When British ships arrived in Boston Harbor carrying tea taxed by a parliament in which they had no voice, the colonists responded with an act of defiance that would echo through the ages. Disguised as Mohawk warriors, these sons of liberty boarded the ships and, under the cover of darkness, sent 342 chests of British tea swirling into the cold waters of Boston Harbor. This was no mere act of vandalism; it was a declaration that the American spirit would not be silenced.
The tensions escalated until that fateful day when the first shots were fired at Lexington Green. British troops marched to seize colonial weapons stored in Concord, but word of their mission spread like wildfire through the countryside. Farmers, storekeepers, fishermen, ordinary men who moments before had been tending their fields and mending their nets, grabbed their muskets and stood as one against the mightiest empire on earth. They fell back before the advancing British regulars, but not before ensuring that the weapons and ammunition at Concord were safely hidden away. The Revolutionary War had begun.
As battles raged from New England to the Carolinas, something extraordinary was happening in Philadelphia. Delegates from across the colonies gathered, knowing that the time had come to make a stand, not just with weapons, but with words. In the sweltering summer heat of 1776, in a room filled with the weight of history, these men debated and deliberated. And in the darkness of night before July 4th, a tall, red-haired Virginian named Thomas Jefferson sat at his desk, quill in hand, crafting the document that would lie at the center of it all.
The Declaration of Independence was more than a political statement; it was a call to arms, a call for freedom, and a call for the grace of Almighty God. With words that would ring through the centuries, Jefferson declared that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” On July 2nd, the document was signed by John Hancock with a signature so bold that King George III could read it without his spectacles. The formal document was fixed and prepared on July 3rd, so that the final declaration would be ready for the world on July 4, 1776 – 250 years ago.
As the delegates signed their names to this revolutionary document, they did so with full knowledge of the price they might pay. With “a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,” they mutually pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. These were not idle words; each man understood that by signing this document, he was signing his own death warrant if the rebellion failed.
And God answered their prayers. Shortly after the Declaration was signed, as General Washington’s army faced certain defeat in New York, a mysterious fog rolled in, thick and impenetrable. Under the cover of this divine blanket, Washington’s forces slipped across the East River, escaping the trap that the British had set for them. Was this mere coincidence, or the hand of Providence guiding the birth of a nation?
Time and again, divine intervention seemed to bless the American cause. When Washington’s army was on the verge of collapse, he led them across the icy Delaware River on Christmas night to surprise the Hessians at Trenton. At Valley Forge, when starvation and cold threatened to destroy the Continental Army, they emerged from that winter crucible stronger and more determined than ever. And finally, at Yorktown, with the French fleet blocking British escape and Washington’s forces closing in from land, the British army surrendered, and America was born.
My friends, this is our story – a tale not just of human courage and determination, but of divine providence guiding the birth of a nation conceived in liberty. It is the story of farmers and shopkeepers who stood against an empire, of statesmen who crafted words that would inspire the world, and of a God who seemed to smile upon their noble cause.
As we celebrate 250 years since that momentous day in Philadelphia, let us remember that America was not founded by accident, but by design – a design that combined the courage of our Founding Fathers with the grace of Almighty God. It is this combination that has carried us through the darkest moments of our history and that will guide us through the challenges ahead.
The tale of America is not finished; it continues with each generation that takes up the mantle of freedom and responsibility. May we, like those who came before us, have the courage to stand for liberty, the wisdom to recognize the hand of Providence in our affairs, and the faith to believe that, with God’s help, the best days of America are yet to come.
God bless America, and may He continue to guide our great nation in the years to come.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The concept of a Separation of Powers stands as a powerful safeguard against tyranny, meticulously woven into the very fabric of American governance through the opening sentences of the first three articles of the United States Constitution. This foundational principle traces its intellectual lineage to ancient and Enlightenment thinkers. The Greek philosopher Polybius championed this separation by asserting that lawmakers must not be lawgivers, and lawgivers must not be lawmakers. Building upon this foundation, Montesquieu further clarified the concept, writing that governmental powers must be divided among three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. The Founding Fathers embraced this wisdom, establishing three separate branches of government, each with individual authorities regarding the law.
The American System, founded upon moral principles and unique limitations on power, finds its codification in the United States Constitution—a written compact between the states, designed to serve its citizens rather than rule over subjects. While the Founding Fathers recognized the necessity of government, they viewed its primary purpose as securing the Natural God-Given Rights of individuals. In America, government was established to pass necessary laws ensuring an orderly society while securing the Blessings of Liberty by applying the law and restraining itself regarding our Natural Rights.
This restraint is particularly evident in the Bill of Rights, which does not call on the federal government to define, protect, or guarantee our Natural Rights, but rather to restrain itself regarding those rights. The First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law,” the Second Amendment concludes with “Shall not be infringed,” the Third Amendment opens with “No soldier shall,” and at the heart of the Fourth Amendment lies the words, “Shall not be violated.” This language does not call for government involvement in our rights but rather restricts government’s interaction with our rights. After all, their role is to “secure” our rights, as stated in both the Preamble and the Declaration of Independence.
A crucial aspect of securing citizens’ rights involves placing limitations on government and distributing power in a manner that prevents excessive consolidation in any particular branch. In the American system, power is divided according to how laws are created, executed, and applied. The legislature (Congress) is granted legislative power (the authority to create, modify, and repeal law), the executive (President) is granted executive power (the authority to execute the law), and the judiciary (Supreme Court and inferior federal courts) are given judicial power (the authority to apply the law). Except in a few minor ways (such as the Exceptions Clause and the Vice President serving as President of the Senate), they may not encroach upon the other branches. In this way, the Separation of Powers ensures they neither collude together nor attempt to micromanage each other.
The word used in the first clauses of each of the first three articles of the Constitution to establish this Separation of Powers is “vested.” This term means to grant with additional caveats, carrying connotations of being “irrevocable” and “exclusionary.” In essence, those powers belong exclusively to each respective branch of government, and they cannot simply relinquish them. Only Congress possesses legislative authority, only the President through the executive branch may execute the law, and only the courts may apply the law and issue sentencing or rulings regarding those decisions.
In an era when Congress attempts to micromanage the President, screams at courts when their rulings don’t align with particular ideologies, when judges try to restrain Congress or the President while illegally legislating from the bench, and when Presidents decide which laws to enforce while creating their own regulations, understanding the vesting clauses of the Constitution and adhering to the Separation of Powers has become more critical than ever before.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary