EXECUTIVE ORDER VS U.S. CONSTITUTION: IS THAT EVEN A CASE FOR THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP?

Whether the Birthright citizenship in the U.S. may be abolished by the Executive order of the U.S. President?

Birthright citizenship, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and applies to the children of undocumented immigrants. It is impossible to abolish a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution by any of the U.S. officials, including the President.

In 1789, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay authored 85 essays, collectively known as The Federalist Papers, to persuade the people of the thirteen independant states to ratify a new Constitution. Following their efforts, the People of the United States agreed to unite around the established U.S. Constitution. It is essential to note that this unification was not for creating the federal government, or the office of the President. Instead, it was solely for ordaining and establishing the United States Constitution.

See the Preamble: 

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Preamble does not express the will of the People to establish governmental branches or grant powers to them, including the office of the President, the will of the People was to unite around the U.S. Constitution. Then, not People by their will or votes, but the Constitution exclusively, through its substantive articles and amendments, defines and empowers the branches of government. This signifies that any authority held by U.S. officials derives not from the electorate or any other source, but exclusively from the provisions of the Constitution.

Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, all officials, including judges and the President, are bound to respect and treat the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. They may only create laws or issue orders “in pursuance thereof,” meaning in alignment with the Constitution. 

See the Supremacy Clause: 

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Article VI.

This carefully structured provision from preamble to articles and amendments was not made for a little significance. It ensures that any U.S. official who issues or advocates for laws or orders contrary to the Constitution violates their oath of office. Disrespecting or undermining the Constitution of the U.S. in the enacted laws or orders strips such U.S. Officials of their authority authomatically since they factually disrespect the oath and thus - the source of their authority. The U.S. President, even though elected by the people, is not empowered by the electorate but exclusively by the Constitution. Any president who claims their power derives from the people is mistaken, as their authority comes only from the Constitution itself, not from people's support or admiration.

Thus, the answer to the question posed in the title is clear: no executive order or law can supersede the U.S. Constitution. In other words, if any U.S. official, regardless of their position, dislikes the Constitution, they are inherently rejecting the very source of their authority. In other words - such an action is like a self-rejecting proclamation.