12-8-25 - 10am - Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael, girl dad.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
Hey, I'm in the middle of the Pacific Ocean somewhere
and I don't actually know where I am, but I was.

Speaker 3 (00:07):
Hoping you could help me.

Speaker 1 (00:08):
Have you looked through your pos to try to figure
out what the story is with a condom tax? I
really really need to know, and if you could give
me a little bit of a heads up on what
that is, that would be great. So thanks, Michael, Mike.

Speaker 4 (00:24):
Dragon, could you just google condom tax for me so
we could help girl dad out while he's on a.

Speaker 1 (00:30):
But what worries me?

Speaker 4 (00:32):
Is he on a military vessel and he's worried about
condom taxes? Or is he on a cruise ship? Or
is he on a dingy just floating around? I mean,
all lost at sea, all.

Speaker 3 (00:44):
Of the above. But I'm worried because the man's married,
that's girl, so.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
Maybe they don't want anymore children.

Speaker 4 (00:52):
Okay, you know you always go to the You always
go to the you know, ugly immoral, kind of perverted
side of things, whereas I always go to the just
the you know, I'm just trying to help fellow man here.
And by the way, if if there is truth to
the condom tax, does it really apply to international waters.

Speaker 1 (01:09):
Oh there, you know.

Speaker 4 (01:11):
And and wouldn't wouldn't there be like if he's on
a commercial boat, wouldn't there be a.

Speaker 1 (01:20):
Commissary of source.

Speaker 4 (01:21):
And you're like a little uh, like a CBS on
board or something, you know, pharmacy where you can get
your own condoms or maybe just go down below to
the men's room and see if there's one of those
machines you put a quarter in it. Yeah, just get
one there. But your look really irritates me.

Speaker 1 (01:40):
One.

Speaker 4 (01:40):
I don't know whether to believe in whether he's really
in the middle of the Pacific Ocean or not, although
I tend to think with his work, he very.

Speaker 1 (01:47):
Well could be. Two.

Speaker 4 (01:50):
We'd like if you are out in the middle of
the Pacific Ocean, we'd like to know why you're out
in the middle of Pacific Ocean.

Speaker 3 (01:56):
He can't tell us, Yes he can.

Speaker 1 (01:59):
He doesn't do anything.

Speaker 4 (02:00):
He just you know, he just he just tells soldiers,
you know, military officials, whether or not the orders are
lawful or not.

Speaker 3 (02:10):
And and well I thought that was left to our politician.

Speaker 4 (02:13):
Well and for him to give them the answer. He
goes and watches the video and then tells them. Once
he sees the video from the six members of the Yahoo's,
you know, like Jason Crow, then he can give the answer.

Speaker 3 (02:26):
I got to read a couple of these really good
text messages that came in three three one zero three
keyword Mike or Michael to start off with Michael, Michael, Hey, brownie.
Let's get back to the truly important topic of the day. Centerpiece, edge,
peach or corner piece. Also, I wonder how many people
bake from scratch or are they like me and use
box mix.

Speaker 4 (02:47):
The corner, the edge or the center depends on the product,
like today's brownie.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
Day, right edge? Okay, yeah, because that way you get
both the crispy and the gooey.

Speaker 3 (03:01):
I like the corners, but I like the crispiness of it,
but it needs to be chewy, not crunchy. Crunchy bad,
chewy good.

Speaker 1 (03:12):
And there's a fine line between crunching and chewy. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (03:15):
Yeah, And this other Texans came in and said, Mike,
you suffer, suffer from TDS.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
He lives rent free. In my head.

Speaker 4 (03:26):
Every time I see an eighteen wheeler, I think of him.
And then the other great thing is we and don't
send it to us? So we don't want to know.
We have no idea what he looks like at least,
but doesn't that that but see that leaves us free
to imagine that he really is just like a troll

(03:47):
of some sort, you know. And he's got a beard
not you know, yours is very styled and cleaned.

Speaker 1 (03:53):
And brushed out and everything.

Speaker 4 (03:54):
There's nothing living in it that I can that I've
ever noticed anyway, But his is just mangled and stuff.
And his hair he's got some baseball cap on this
kind of crooked sideways hairs all matted down. He hasn't
shaved a showered in weeks.

Speaker 1 (04:08):
You know. He reeks just reeks a.

Speaker 4 (04:10):
Bio and oil and gas, diesel and stuff just and
and you know, and the truck has got like the
the Dorido sack is half open, has been open for
a week, and the Doris you know, the crumbs are
all hanging around. And I don't know whether he smokes
or drinks, but he probably drinks. So there's a bunch
of beer cans and he's smashed and you know, there's

(04:32):
just they're tossed around. So whenever he makes some sharp curves,
everything just moves over the other side. Which he considers
that to be cleaning off. So now he's got new
cleaning space for new bags of Doritos or Freedom lay
chips or whatever. He you know, crumbs everywhere, and he's
got a he's got a handheld can opener, and he
just opens cans of porks and porking beans and just

(04:53):
you know, shoves them down out of the can and
he just keeps So as long as we don't know
what he really looks like, he may be. You know,
he may drive in a suit, a three piece suit,
for all we know. But that's not all we want
to imagine. We want to imagine that. It's kind of
like I used to make fun of of Ryan Shuling's

(05:14):
you know, apartment and his futon. Yeah, and he may
have a futon in the back of his truck too.
We go from that on this program to the citizenship
clause of the fourteenth Amendment. All right, see there this

(05:35):
is we we we cause whiplash. Also, the fourteenth Amendment
contains fourteen words before you get to the comma, but
three of them still do almost all of the work.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and

(05:57):
subject to the.

Speaker 3 (05:58):
Jurisdiction quick, real quick, girl, Dad just email. Oh, I'm sorry,
he's on a cruise.

Speaker 1 (06:05):
Really all right?

Speaker 3 (06:07):
What but.

Speaker 4 (06:11):
At where in the where you're going to Hawaii or what?

Speaker 3 (06:14):
Just says cruising? Oh, Grady sent a picture. I didn't
need to see that. It's just him, but.

Speaker 1 (06:23):
I know it's better enough. Gee. All right, back to
the citizenship clause.

Speaker 4 (06:31):
It's the fourteenth It's in the fourteenth Amendment and fourteen
words before the comma, but three of them are the primary.
They're the heavy lifters. All persons born or naturalized in
the United States comma and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

(06:52):
So it's all persons born or naturalized in the United
States and subject to the jurisdiction there of are citizens
of the United States. Pretty spare, yet they direct you
toward a pretty demanding idea citizenship follows allegiance. So when

(07:16):
Trump signed the executive voter fourteen one sixty asked, which
asked whether a birth that occurs while both parents lack
any lawful and durable tie to the United States satisfies
that condition. The answer that you have to look at
the text, the history, the structure, and the logic of membership,

(07:38):
and when you do that. The answer is no, and
I maintain I don't care how many Supreme Court decisions
we have. The Supreme Court is ignoring text, history, structure,
and the logic of membership.

Speaker 3 (07:55):
Well.

Speaker 4 (07:56):
In a shocking revelation, the Supreme Court has agreed to
decide this question. Now we won't have we won't even
have oral arguments. They'll start the briefing pretty soon, but
oral arguments are not expected until next spring. A fling rule,
a final ruling, probably by I'm guessing this will be
one of the final rules, or they issue before the

(08:21):
end of the October term, so you might get a decision. Oh,
I don't know sometime in the summer, don't. I just
it's all a guess. But this is the first time
since eighteen ninety eight that the Supreme Court will face
the constitutional meaning of birthright citizenship, and it's about time

(08:44):
they do. Start with the text itself. If the framers,
if the founding fathers, meant that every birth on US
soil confers citizenship, then why would you have a qualifying phrase.

Speaker 1 (09:01):
All persons born or naturalized.

Speaker 4 (09:03):
In the United States and subject to the jurisdiction effort thereof.
That would be the qualifying. Why would you need that
If the founders meant that anybody born on American soil
is a US citizen, why would you put you would
just write all persons born or naturalized in the United
States or citizens of the United States. Why would you

(09:23):
throw in and subject to the jurisdiction thereof? Because they
did not say that every person born in the United
States is a citizen. They wrote born here and and
the conjunctive phrase means and this you have to include
this too, it's not or it's and so it's born

(09:48):
and subject to the jurisdiction. Now, Senator Lyman Trumbull explain
that point with clarity when they were debating it. Being
so the subject to the jurisdiction required owing no allegiance
to any other sovereign and being under the complete jurisdiction

(10:09):
of the United States. You have to remember when this
amendment was adopted during around the Civil War. The eighteen
sixty six Civil Rights Act used an almost identical formula.

Speaker 1 (10:24):
All persons born.

Speaker 4 (10:25):
In the United States and not subject to any foreign power,
excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens. So the drafters understood
the phrases as equivalent. The incident Jacob Poward, who introduced
the clause, described its scope.

Speaker 1 (10:45):
Listen closely to this, It just just drives me nuts.

Speaker 4 (10:52):
Senator Jacob Poward, who introduced the clause, described its scope
as excluding the children of foreigners, aliens, and families of
ambassadors or ministers.

Speaker 1 (11:07):
So the reverti.

Speaker 4 (11:08):
Johnson agreed and tied jurisdiction to allegiance to the United
States at birth. Congressman John Bingham had earlier distilled the
same idea that citizenship attaches to those born here of
parents not owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign. So the
shared theme among the drafters of both the Amendment and

(11:30):
the eighteen sixty six Civil Rights Act, expressed repeatedly, is
that it is allegiance that matters, it is not geography. Now,
some of you may worry that these statements were just
stray remarks. They were not stray remarks. They reflected a
moral purpose of the clause itself, because after the Civil War,

(11:55):
Congress wanted to secure citizenship for the slaves, for the
freedmen who had been born here and owed allegiance here.
Yet those same people had been denied citizenship for those
who already belonged. Not to extend an open invitation to
secure automatic membership through just happenstance. So this jurisdictional language

(12:18):
mattered because it directed the guarantee toward those who stood
fully within American authority. So what were the framers trying
to do? They were trying to protect an existing community.
They weren't trying to create an unconditional worldwide right to
citizenship just by accident of place. Early early judicial decisions

(12:44):
aligned with that understanding. For example, the Supreme Court in
the slaughter House cases read the clause as specifically excluding
the children of ministers of consuls and citizens of or
subjects of foreign states. Then, in a case called Elk

(13:04):
versus Wilkins, the Court denied birth citizenship to a Native
American born with US born within US territory because at
birth he owed allegiance to his tribe, who was a
and that tribe was a distinct sovereign. Now, it was

(13:25):
only later that Congress enacted the Indian Citizenship Act in
nineteen twenty four that conferred citizenship on Native Americans Native Indians,
which would have been unnecessary. If this territorial birth alone
had been sufficient, Congress wouldn't needed to have enacted that
it would just been, Hey, every Indian that was born

(13:46):
here is automatically a citizen. No, they enacted that because
they knew that the clause. They knew in nineteen twenty four,
that back in eighteen sixty six, that that clause was
put in there for a very specific reason. Now, the
executive branch. All I've talked about so far is the

(14:08):
legislative branch and the judicial branch. Well, the executive branch
followed the exact same path. Secretary of State Frederic Frielenheisen
and Thomas Bayard declined to treat certain US born children
of transient foreign nationals as citizens. And when they did,

(14:28):
they explained that Berth's implying alien subjection did not create
citizenship by force of the Constitution alone.

Speaker 1 (14:37):
So, in the.

Speaker 4 (14:37):
Formative generation after ratification of the amendment, jurisdiction meant more
than you know, place latitude and longitude. It meant allegiance
often indexed to the parents' standing, including their domicile and
their permission to remain here. Yeah, the critics of what
I just described as my reasoning of why the amendment

(14:59):
means what it means, they will invoke a case which
we've talked about before on this program, maybe not over here,
but on the other station. But we've talked about this
case before, the United States versus Wong Kim ARC, and
many people treat that case as if it answers the
entire question. It did not answer the question.

Speaker 1 (15:18):
There.

Speaker 4 (15:18):
The court held very simply that a child born in
San Francisco to Chinese subjects whose parents were lawfully and
permanently domiciled in this country was a citizen.

Speaker 1 (15:34):
And people just skim over that.

Speaker 4 (15:36):
And I think it's critical because the opinion repeatedly emphasized
that the parents were resident aliens with an established and
permanent domicile. Now in that case, too, the court noted
a bunch of traditional exceptions diplomats and if you were

(15:57):
here as a hostile occupier, and it did not consider,
let alone decide the case the children born to those
here unlawfully or even just briefly, oh my gosh, you're
just at the time you wouldn't have been flying. But
let's just say, oh my gosh, you're flying. You shouldn't
be flying when you're that close to having a baby,
or maybe you're not. Maybe you're just six months or

(16:17):
eight months, and you land at Denver International airport and suddenly, oh,
you go into labor, so they take you to a
local hospital and you give birth. But you were just transiting.
You were flying from Paris to well, let's say there's
no direct fly so you're flying from Frankfurt or London
to again, you're on your way to Oh, I don't

(16:40):
know to see where would you be going. You might
be going to Tokyo, and the cheapest route was London, Denver,
Denver direct Tokyo. This doesn't make you a resident. Who
the right mind would think that makes that person a citizen.
Just the practicality of it shows how stupid it is.

(17:02):
And that's why I say in Wong Kim arc, that
Supreme Court case, all the critics who invoked that case
is proving that this is what Congress meant ignores what
that really accepted. It accepted those who are here in
terms of being just transitory. And it was only the
case of it one child whose parents were lawfully and

(17:26):
permanently domiciled in this country. And yeah, it is break time,
so let me take a break. When I get back,
I want to show you how extending Wong, the Wong
case Wan Kim arc beyond this fact converts a very
carefully crafted holding about the children of lawful permanent residents
into this stupid unwritten rule for every newborn, regardless of

(17:51):
their parental status.

Speaker 5 (17:52):
I tell you, I'm so excited to be able to
listen to the situation with Michael Brown on kna A
radio as I'd drive across Missouri and it causes mamas,
did you ob tail to vibrate? Amen?

Speaker 1 (18:07):
Hallelujah. Amen.

Speaker 4 (18:12):
Love the goobers, absolutely love the goobers, even those that
pay for the Wi Fi on a cruise ship to
listen on the free iHeartRadio app.

Speaker 3 (18:23):
I have a question here. We just had that guy
said that he was wherever. I wasn't paying attention for
wherever he was somewhere and then in the Pacific, where's
our map?

Speaker 4 (18:34):
Well, I asked him her one day, she sent it back.
She said it back last week.

Speaker 3 (18:38):
So you received a map there. I told you that
you didn't tell the audience that. Oh no, well, I'm sorry.
Are there no secrets between you and me? Clearly nothing.
Michael has a hard time figuring out inches and feet.

Speaker 1 (18:57):
Maybe tam Or ordered it.

Speaker 3 (19:00):
I don't know. A guy six inches is different than
a woman six inches?

Speaker 4 (19:04):
What do you think, I guess I should actually measure
that figure out, like how wide.

Speaker 3 (19:08):
That three ft or take?

Speaker 1 (19:10):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (19:11):
You think because I think it's an odd I think
the next shape, next shape, the next size up as
an odd odd number.

Speaker 1 (19:17):
I mean to.

Speaker 3 (19:17):
So what we're alluding to is Michael ordered the wrong size.
He ordered something roughly the size of a sheet of
paper and not this three foot by two foot map.

Speaker 1 (19:29):
Are you done?

Speaker 3 (19:30):
I can be, probably not, but I can be, but
you won't be.

Speaker 4 (19:35):
You won't be you You kind of treat me the
way I should treat my little brother.

Speaker 3 (19:42):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (19:42):
And the sad part is I think I'm significantly older
than you, just a bit. Yeah, yeah, but yeah, you
you seem to think back there you can just interrupt
me and try to get me to go.

Speaker 3 (19:53):
Chase interrupt you turn your mic off at a moment's notice,
and nobody can hear what you're saying anyway. Yeah, you
know I'm in charge. I'm glad you they figured out that.
Everybody knows it.

Speaker 4 (20:05):
And in the middle of all of this, we're trying
to discuss the fourteenth Amendment.

Speaker 1 (20:09):
By the way, do you know fourteenth? You know?

Speaker 4 (20:12):
Do you have to spell fourteenth like the one four
little th h you.

Speaker 3 (20:15):
Know, Yeah, does that have a specific name or something?
I'm productiously well, I'm not you know, that's a good question.

Speaker 1 (20:20):
I'm not sure what you would call that. It's not
really a.

Speaker 3 (20:22):
Contraction, it's just a little th h. But it's got
to be above and in the corner. Yeah, Yeah, I'm
gonna there's gotta be a name for that.

Speaker 1 (20:30):
I'm gonna a.

Speaker 3 (20:30):
Little squared symbol, yeah, or the cube symbols.

Speaker 1 (20:33):
I was trying to think of the name.

Speaker 4 (20:35):
Oh, it was a I think it's a canula or something,
this little thing that you put in your.

Speaker 1 (20:38):
Noses from oxygen. Yeah, is that what it's called?

Speaker 3 (20:41):
Yeah, canula, that sounds pretty accurate.

Speaker 1 (20:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (20:44):
Or a canoli is a can or canola is the
cream filled dish dessert?

Speaker 1 (20:49):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (20:50):
So what is the what is the name for in fourteenth?
Not the word, but the number fourteenth? What's the little
th h with the line under?

Speaker 1 (20:59):
What's name?

Speaker 3 (21:00):
In any number? It doesn't have to only be on fourteen? Okay,
first second?

Speaker 4 (21:05):
Okay, okay, got it, got it, got me?

Speaker 3 (21:09):
I continue fine, all right, So let's go back to
the class. Your name is on the show. I mean
you might as well, is that I don't know.

Speaker 4 (21:17):
Sometimes I wonder, all right, Sometimes I wonder and it's
Monday and it's getting close to Christmas, and we just
don't care. When you think about let's think for a
moment about jurisdiction, because in the Constitution and in our

(21:38):
laws for that matter, jurisdiction is demanding. Jurisdiction is also
a prerequisite or a requirement. Who has jurisdiction over a case,
not the venue, because jurisdiction that you know, you commit
a murder in Colorado, the jurisdiction is, assuming it's a

(22:02):
state murder, your jurisdiction is Colorado. You can't go try
the case in Missouri. You got to try it. The
jurisdiction is in Colorado. That's a requirement. And in the Constitution,
jurisdiction is also demanding. It is not a synonym for
physical control at any given moment. It marks a relation
of the rightful governance and a reciprocal obligation. So people's

(22:27):
people that are temporarily present, yes, are physically within the
government's reach. So if you are from Paris or you're
from Frankfurt and you're speeding down, you know the twenty
five and a Colorado State troopers stops you. You are
you're not subject to your subject to the jurisdiction, but

(22:49):
your allegiance remains elsewhere. So you're physically within the government's reach.
But you're still a German or a Parisian. You're not Colorado.
And the Congress during reconstruction understood that distinction, so they
wrote text to capture that distinction. A baby born to

(23:12):
two tourists leaves the hospital with a passport to the
parent's nation, because allegiance follows parentage when domicile does not
tie the family to this country. The diplomat's child is
I think the lawful example. The diplomat is within our
territory and subject to some local laws like speeding. Yet

(23:36):
everybody agrees that the diplomat's child is not a citizen
at birth. Why because the clause concerns membership, not geography.
So when Trump issued his executive order, it reflected that logic,
and it channels it into a prospective rule. If at
least one parent is a US citizen or a lawful

(23:57):
permanent resident, the child is a citizen birth. If neither
parent has that status, the child is not a citizen
of this country. Nobody loses citizenship retroactively, but no one
is denationalized. The order operates prospectively and leaves untouched the
ordinary path of naturalization. It closes a gap that has

(24:20):
widened and gotten wider and wider between the original meeting
and this modern administrative drift, and that drift has been
driven primarily, in my opinion, by politics, not the rule
of law. We have adopted this idea that you're born here,
you got birthright citizenship because Democrats primarily wanted that. They

(24:44):
wanted people that came here unlawfully to become citizens because
then they could vote for them. Now my position about
birthright citizenship, some people actually believe that's on America. They
think that it's awful that I have that attitude. I
think the contrary is true. Citizenship is a reciprocal status.

(25:09):
It is a bond of protection and allegiance. It's not
a prize because you successfully made it here. It's not
a consolation prize because you unlawfully enter the country. So
restoring the role of allegiance honors the basic small R
Republican premise that a people govern themselves by consent and

(25:31):
includes deciding the terms of membership in this club that
we call the United States of America. It includes the
authority to say that citizens' children and permanent residents children
belonged by birth, and it says that children of transience

(25:52):
or illegalaliens must join the community through the lawful process
like everybody else. That's not cruel, that's equality, that's equality
under the law. And then there are people that fear
that the executive vorder conflict with precedent. Obviously, I don't

(26:15):
think it does because of everything I told you about
what that president really is. And then people will argue, well,
just the policy is unwise. They imagine bureaucratic friction, or
they worry about statelessness, or suspect that it's an anti
illegal alien motive. Every single one of those concerns can

(26:36):
be answered. Administrative systems already verify parnal identity and status
for a range of benefits. Adding a simple inquiry regarding
whether at least one parent is a citizen or lawful
permanent resident is not only feasible, I think it's practical,
and I think it's reasonable. Statelessness doesn't follow. Most nations

(26:59):
confer to citizenship by descent, and rare edge cases can
be addressed by Congress, as it's already done, and as
for motives, structure supplies the best evidence. A rule that
accepts citizens and green card holders children equally regardless of
race or origin, and that treats every other child equally
regardless of race or origin, is a neutral policy. It

(27:23):
creates no permanent bar. It preserves the naturalization process, so
it's not punitive, it's not exclusionary. It's all calibrated to
the original intent about jurisdiction and allegiance.

Speaker 1 (27:41):
Michael, this is one seven th one.

Speaker 2 (27:45):
I was just sitting listening to your Monday show and
the just I have a name for the new show,
call it Dragon and the Michael. I, hey, both of you,
hate both of you.

Speaker 4 (28:03):
Gee, okay, So if your name's going to be on
it too, then when then when I finished in this segment,
then you just came in do the last segment.

Speaker 3 (28:15):
No, I'm like the director of Like movies, Stephen Jackson.
I'll just step back and you know, watch you.

Speaker 1 (28:22):
Do the work.

Speaker 2 (28:23):
But I.

Speaker 4 (28:24):
But you're criticized, of course, right, criticize, right, Yeah, everything positive,
just all critical, Okay. Steven Spielberg and you're.

Speaker 3 (28:33):
Tom Hanks, You're nowhere near as good looking as Tom Hanks.

Speaker 4 (28:38):
Well, you said Spielberg, and I first immediately thought of
Hanks because something made me what was I doing. I
was doing something this weekend. I was reading something about Normandy,
and that opening scene in Saving Private Ryan, I think
is so spot on that I stopped reading what I

(28:59):
was reading and went over to YouTube and I watched
like nine minutes of that opening scene and then went
back to reading what I was reading about Normandy because
they were talking about some of the problems they had
with at Omaha Beach and the planning and everything.

Speaker 1 (29:13):
It was.

Speaker 4 (29:14):
It was fascinating. So the path, I think the path
to the Supreme Court ruling is pretty clear. The Constitution
simply does not compel citizenship by birth when neither parent
has a lawful or a durable tie to this country.
And if we in Supreme if the Supreme Court does
what I think they should, when I think they will,

(29:35):
that principle will preserved citizenship for children of citizens and
lawful permanent residents, and will leave untouched the long established
naturalization process for everybody else. So that will respect the
structure of the Fourteenth Amendment, it will preserve its original meaning,

(29:56):
and it will preserve its historical purpose, reconciles the text
with those early judicial decisions and with the early executive practice,
and all of that aligns this country with pure democracies
that long ago revised similar rules to reflect allegiance and

(30:18):
not geography. But I think most importantly, it restores coherence
to the first sentence of the fourteenth Amendment, a sentence
whose clarity has been obscured by politics, and that clear
ruling is going to give us stability to a legal
landscape that has been marked by uncertainty. Hospitals, government agencies

(30:42):
wouldn't know how to classify a newborn States would be
able to plan budgets and services without just guessing at
shifting citizenship practices. Families would have clarity and could make
decisions based on an accurate expectation rather than this illusory
promise that anybody born within the US borders guarantees membership

(31:06):
in this sovereign community, and the federal courts could no
longer be forced to manage nationwide injunctions based on speculative
readings of the President, and the integrity of our citizenship
would be strengthened, and the Constitution will once again be
read according to its text. Not according to a bunch

(31:27):
of dumbass assumptions that accumulated over decades for a century
without judicial scrutiny. And I think that is why the
Court will completely upend birthright citizenship