Malcolm Rivera
Former President Donald Trump has made several attempts to change or undermine the U.S. Constitution, which is the world's longest-lasting written constitution. Trump's efforts have included trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, targeting law firms involved in litigation protecting voting rights, and issuing executive orders to exert control over the nation's election systems. Trump has also sought to take away the citizenship guarantee in the 14th Amendment, which was established in 1898 and grants citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' status. However, it is important to note that the President cannot change the Constitution through executive orders, and any amendments require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, as well as ratification by three-quarters of the states.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Can Trump change the Constitution by executive order? | No |
| Can Trump change the 14th Amendment? | No |
| Can Trump change the Constitution with support from Congress? | Yes |
| Can Trump change the Constitution with support from the Supreme Court? | Yes |
| Can Trump change the Constitution with support from the states? | Yes |
| Can Trump change the Constitution without support from Congress, the Supreme Court, or the states? | No |
Explore related products
![The First Amendment: [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Casebook) (Aspen Casebook Series)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61p49hyM5WL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
Trump's attempts to change voting laws
Despite the US Constitution not granting the president the power to regulate elections, former President Donald Trump has made several attempts to change voting laws. Trump has a history of promoting false information about voting and election fraud, particularly regarding mail voting, which remains popular and is used by about one-third of all voters. He has also claimed that there is "MASSIVE FRAUD" in mail voting, despite voting fraud in the US being rare.
In 2025, Trump vowed to make significant changes to the way elections are conducted in the US. He targeted mail voting and voting machines, which are used in almost all of the country's thousands of election jurisdictions. Trump's plan to eliminate mail voting would have impacted states like Washington and Oregon, which conduct elections entirely by mail. These states, along with others, have challenged Trump's executive overreach in court.
Trump also signed an executive order in 2025, reshaping how elections in the US are run. The order called for dramatic changes to voter registration and election procedures, requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration and mandating that all ballots be returned by Election Day, or states would risk losing federal funding. This executive order was described by critics as an "executive power grab" and an attempt to shift power over federal elections to the presidency. It faced legal challenges from several states and was deemed unlawful by election officials, state attorneys general, and legal experts.
Trump has also attempted to use the office of the president to spread false narratives of illegal voting and voter fraud. He established a commission on "election integrity," which was disbanded due to lawsuits, including one brought by the ACLU. Trump's claims of winning the 2020 election and his obsession with non-citizen voting have raised concerns about his intentions to justify voter suppression and intimidate voters and election workers.
Trump has also expressed his intention to sign an executive order on voter ID, requiring voters to provide identification for all elections. This proposal has faced opposition and is expected to face legal challenges, as it disproportionately impacts people of color, the elderly, and student voters.
It is important to note that Trump's attempts to change voting laws have faced significant resistance and legal challenges due to their encroachment on state powers outlined in the US Constitution.
Exploring FAA's Limits: Can They Amend the Constitution?
You may want to see also
The 14th Amendment and citizenship
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, was intended to grant equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens following the Civil War. It also extended the liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people.
A major provision of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This guaranteed citizenship to all children born on US soil, regardless of their parents' status. This was further upheld by the Supreme Court in 1898, which specifically rejected the argument that a child born to non-citizen parents was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and thus excluded from citizenship.
The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause has been interpreted to mean that birthright citizenship is guaranteed to those born in the US, without regard to parentage, skin colour, or ethnicity. This interpretation has been supported by legal scholars and officials, including James C. Ho, appointed by President Trump to the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit, who affirmed that citizenship is protected for children of undocumented persons.
Despite this, there have been recent attempts to challenge birthright citizenship. In 2023, President Trump stated his intention to issue an executive order to remove the citizenship guarantee in the 14th Amendment. However, it is important to note that the President cannot unilaterally change or repeal parts of the Constitution by executive order. Amending the Constitution requires a rigorous process, including a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, as well as ratification by three-quarters of the states.
Texas' Constitution: Last Amendments and Future Changes
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court and Trump's second term
The US Constitution does not give the president a say over elections, and Trump cannot change the Constitution by executive order. However, during Trump's second term, the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has consistently backed his assertions of presidential power. The Supreme Court has heard some cases on an emergency basis, as the administration fought attempts to stymie its policies while legal challenges continued. The court has sided with Trump in almost every case so far.
In May, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to end Biden-era temporary deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans. The justices also allowed the administration to deport migrants to politically unstable countries like South Sudan without a chance to show the harms they could face. The Supreme Court has also overturned the bump stock ban, which was a policy from the first Trump administration.
The Supreme Court has also pushed back on the administration in a few areas. In May, the justices faulted the administration for seeking to remove Venezuelan migrants without adequate legal process. In another case, a federal appeals court ruled that Trump's reliance on a 1798 law to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members was likely unlawful.
The Supreme Court is also set to resolve clashes over Trump's power. The court will decide on administration actions stemming from Trump's sweeping claims of executive power. One such case concerns Trump's tariffs pursued under a 1977 law meant for emergencies, which a lower court ruled were illegal. The Supreme Court's decision will test how amenable the justices are to Trump's expansive view of his authority.
In terms of gun rights, the Trump administration is looking at ways to ban transgender Americans from owning guns by declaring them mentally ill. The administration has also urged the Supreme Court to take up United States v. Hemani, which concerns restrictions on gun possession for habitual drug users.
Women's Reproductive Rights: A Constitutional Amendment?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Trump's executive orders and the Constitution
Executive orders are written policy directives issued by the president with much of the same power as federal law. However, they are not explicitly defined in the Constitution and instead rest on historical practice, executive interpretations, and court decisions. While the Constitution does not address executive orders, the president has two primary sources of power to issue directives and executive orders: the Constitution and powers granted to the president by Congress.
President Donald Trump has issued a series of executive orders, some of which have been challenged in court. An executive order restricting birthright citizenship was temporarily blocked by a federal court judge, and another lawsuit is imminent about an order banning transgender troops from serving in the military. Trump has also issued an executive order withholding federal funds from "sanctuary cities" that do not share immigration and citizenship status information with federal authorities.
Trump's executive orders have been criticised for causing chaos, damaging the democratic process, and harming vulnerable communities. Some of his orders have been deemed unlawful, as they violate the Constitution or federal statutes. For example, at least three of his Day 1 Executive Orders called for unlawful impoundment, or unlawful deferrals, in violation of the Impoundment Control Act and Congress's constitutional power of the purse.
Trump's attempt to change the Constitution by executive order has been met with resistance. For instance, he cannot repeal part of the Constitution, such as the 14th Amendment, by executive order. Amending the Constitution would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, as well as ratification by three-quarters of the states.
In conclusion, while Trump has the power to issue executive orders, they must be within the boundaries set by the Constitution and federal laws. His orders can be challenged and overturned by the courts if found to be unlawful or in violation of constitutional rights.
North Korea's Constitution: Rights Denied and Amendments Ignored
You may want to see also
Congress and election rules
The Constitution does not give the president a say over elections. The president cannot change the Constitution by executive order. The Constitution can only be amended with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, and ratification by three-quarters of the states.
Congress and state legislatures regulate the "times, places, and manner" of holding elections for senators and representatives. This includes notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, and counting of votes.
Congress may at any time make or alter regulations regarding the times, places, and manner of holding elections. This is known as the Elections Clause. The Elections Clause grants Congress the power to override state regulations and establish uniform rules for federal elections that are binding on the states.
Congress did not exercise this power until 1842 when it passed a law requiring that representatives be elected on a district basis. In 1870, Congress passed the first comprehensive federal statute to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment's guarantee against racial discrimination in voting. Congress has also added contiguity, compactness, and substantial equality of population to districting requirements.
Constitutional Amendment Measure 98: What's the Verdict?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, the President cannot change the Constitution with an executive order.
Congress can change the way states run congressional and presidential elections but has no say in how a state runs its own elections. The President is not mentioned at all in the Constitution’s list of entities with powers over elections.
Amending the Constitution would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, as well as ratification by three-quarters of the states.
