An activist federal judge has blocked a key executive order recently implemented by President Donald Trump.

The executive order that was signed by President Trump does away with birthright citizenship, i.e., the granting of full citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens who are physically present in the United States.

The order is part and parcel of the president’s overall border reform package.

Several lawsuits have been initiated by states that are opposed to the order. In addition, the ACLU has taken it upon itself to represent a number of left-wing groups in bringing legal action.

In my legal assessment, by issuing the executive order on birthright citizenship, President Trump is prompting the courts to clarify and rule on the language, meaning, and substance of what the law actually states.

For quite a long time government institutions have allowed policies to be implemented apart from the law, policies that deem all persons born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents are citizens.

However, the United States Constitution does not necessitate this policy. In fact, there is nothing in either the Constitution or in any federal statute that grants birthright citizenship to a child born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents.

What appears to be a complex issue actually isn’t. A look back at constitutional history provides quite a bit of insight and may help to clarify things.

The most repugnant decision in Supreme Court history took place in 1857, when the High Court issued its ruling on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. The Court held that U.S.-born descendants of African slaves were not citizens.

In response to the Dred Scott decision, when the Civil War ended Congress did two things.

First, it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Second, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was drafted and passed, which took the protections of the Civil Rights Act and incorporated them into the text of the Constitution.

The goal was a singular one: To grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people.

The amendment does not say that all children born in the United States are citizens. The drafters of the amendment would have used different language if this were the intention. But they didn’t.

The 14th Amendment, as approved and written, states the following: “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.

It is important to note the conditional phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The original meaning of the phrase has to do with the concept of political allegiance.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, who was one of the principal figures involved in the drafting of the 14th Amendment, spelled it out. Individuals who owed allegiance to or were subject to a foreign power were not granted citizenship by the amendment.

Clearly, the language of the 14th Amendment didn’t apply to everyone born here. Children of tribally-affiliated Native Americans as well as diplomats were not included in the extension of citizenship, even if they were born in the U.S.

The historical reasoning that excluded tribally affiliated Native Americans and diplomats from birthright citizenship applies equally to those who are illegally present in our country today.

Why? Because illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States in that their first contact with the U.S. was an illegal act, and additionally they maintain citizenship with another country while illegally residing in the U.S.

In an apparent attempt to bolster their arguments, opponents of President Trump’s executive order bring up the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong. This case involved a child born in the U.S. during a period when federal law barred Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens.

However, the High Court’s decision was predicated on the fact that the child’s Chinese parents were in the country lawfully and permanently. In other words, the case dealt with a child born to parents who were both legal immigrants.

Truth be known, the Supreme Court has never had to deal with a birthright citizenship case involving children born to parents living in the country illegally.

Looks like the High Court will have to now.

Hopefully, the justices will be paying close attention to the five little words and will rule accordingly.

James Hirsen, J.D., M.A., in media psychology, is a New York Times best-selling author, media analyst, and law professor. Visit Newsmax TV Hollywood. Read James Hirsen's Reports — More Here.