Popular Posts

With that, we bring in Mark Tieson, former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush, American Enterprise Institute senior fellow and Washington Post columnist and a Fox News contributor. Mark, always good to have you with us. What do you make of this clear dividing line between the current lead candidate for the GOP in the presidential election and his former ally, Senator Lindsey Graham? Well, I don't think he's his former ally, and I think Donald Trump tends to use this. Looks like Mark's shot is freezing up there. All right. Do we have Mark back? All right. Can you hear me? Coming in a little bit in and out there, Mark. Let's try it one more time. Go ahead. Okay. Yeah, sure. So, I mean, look, Lindsey Graham has his heart in the right place, but he is wrong and Donald Trump is right. And here's why. Donald Trump is being honest with pro-life voters in saying there is no chance that a 15-week abortion ban is going to get passed by the United States Senate because you need 60 votes to do that, to overcome a filibuster. And there's no way that the Republican Party is going to have a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority anytime soon. We don't even have the majority at all right now, and we're trying to get it back. So, it would be an empty promise to say we're going to pass a 15-week abortion ban at the federal level. But that has not stopped Democrats from demagoguing the issue. Joe Biden has said that Donald Trump wants a federal ban on abortion nationwide. And Biden served in the Senate for decades. He knows that's not true. He knows how the filibuster works, but he's trying to do it anyway because that's the only issue he has. So, what Donald Trump has done is he's being honest with the voters. He has defanged the issue from Democrats. They can no longer say that he wants a federal abortion ban because he's taken that off the table. And he's enabled Republicans to now go after Democrats and point out that they are the abortion extremists. The Democratic orthodoxy used to be abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, and there was a necessary evil. Now their policy is federal taxpayer-funded abortion on demand up until the moment of birth. That is way out of step with the American people. So, Republicans can now focus on that rather than defending a ban at the federal level that is never going to happen that most Americans don't want to happen at that time. Yeah. I mean, we've heard a lot of things along the way and the evolution of former President Trump's stance on this. And I think it's fair to say that a lot of politicians have evolved on this issue over time to the position. It's very, very difficult to navigate in this country. Here's the former GOP candidate, Nikki Haley, and what she said during the campaign on this. Watch. I think that there is a place for a federal law, but they need to tell the American people the truth on how you get there. The only way you get a federal law is if you have a majority of the House, 60 Senate votes, and a signature by a president. So no Republican president can ban any state law, can ban abortions any more than Democrats can ban state laws. So what should we do? I think we find consensus. You know, your thoughts on her stance, which sounds fairly similar to former President Trump's stance right now. Yeah, it sounds like everyone was hailing Nikki Haley for saying that. But when Donald Trump says something similar, all of a sudden he's a pro-choice radical of some kind. I mean, look, first of all, the only reason we can ban abortion in any level is because of Donald Trump, because of the Supreme Court. He's the only president in six decades, Republican, that had a perfect record of Supreme Court appointments, which gave us this right. And second of all, he's right. We have to fight this out of the states and we have to do it in an incremental way. We have to end of Roe was not the end of the fight. It was the beginning. We have to convince Americans over time of the sanctity of unborn life. And that's going to take incremental progress at the state level. And if you do it the opposite way, they're going to elect pro-choice Democrats and it'll set back the pro-life cause even more. Yeah. In some ways, a lot of the same people who were fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade and say this is a state issue. It has to be decided by people closer to the issue in their own state. Some states will be very conservative on it. Some states will be more liberal. And they claim that that was exactly what they felt should happen now that they got what they wanted. They want to go back to some sort of blanket federal decision on all of this. So we'll see where it goes. Mark, thank you very much. Good to see you as always. Take care.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Let's bring in Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and a member of the Supreme Court bar. Are you making any predictions, Mark, about how the Supreme Court will see this case and rule on it? I think there's an excellent chance this is going to be the biggest victory of Donald Trump's career as a politician, frankly, to actually fix a constitutional wrong that has been a wrong for over a hundred years, largely because no one has had standing to sue over it until Donald Trump's brilliant move to enact this executive order, which finally, finally gave rise to the opportunity to get this issue before the U.S. Supreme Court. Up until that time, people did not have standing to sue because the only people that sort of got directly impacted by this, if you're born in the America, you're automatically an American citizen, they were beneficiary. So they obviously were not going to sue over this. And now because of Donald Trump, we're in front of the Supreme Court and hopefully we're going to get a good outcome in favor of the Constitution. John Dupree was on Fox News Sunday earlier today. He had this to say about how he sees the case. Listen. The birthright citizenship, like it or not, is enshrined in the Constitution. So I do think that the administration is going to have a bit of an uphill battle. But I will say this, having read the briefs, looked at what the administration is arguing, they have presented a much stronger, more compelling argument against birthright citizenship than I had thought coming into this. I don't know that it's going to be enough to get five votes in their favor, but they've made it a close case. Wasn't birthright citizenship originally supposed to help those who were slaves or children of slaves be recognized as U.S. citizens? That's right, John. The reality is that after the Civil War, the United States adopted the 14th Amendment. In the 14th Amendment's text, literally in the text, John, there's two components that have to be satisfied for you to be a citizen. The first is, yes, you have to be born in the United States, physically born in the United States. That's step one. But that's not the only step. You also have to be what's known as subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That is the text of the 14th Amendment that the left in America likes to pretend is nothing more than an inkblot. But the reality is that subject to the jurisdiction thereof, John, is very important because what it says is if you're born, you have to be born in the United States and you have to be loyal to the United States, which means you're not loyal to a foreign power. Now, if you're the child of illegal aliens or if your parents bring you here on a holiday and you're born here while your parents intend to go back to China, let's say, you're not loyal to the United States as understood by the law. You're beholden to another foreign country. And that is going all the way back, which, by the way, is why Native Americans were not citizens under the 14th Amendment. It required a change in the statutory law in the 20th century, John, to make Native Americans lawful U.S. citizens because although they were in the United States at the time of the 1868 14th Amendment, they were not loyal to the United States because they were loyal to their respective tribes. Jonathan Turley is a Fox News contributor, also a George Washington University law professor. Here's how he sees the argument. When the 14th Amendment was drafted, some of the drafters said explicitly that it does not allow for birthright citizenship. The problem are these six words, this clause, put in the middle of an otherwise clear sentence. But the key is that those words were not in that sentence in the original draft. They were intentionally inserted. So you can't just treat them as superfluous. They were inserted for a reason. And I think that there are compelling arguments on both sides here. So he seems to say that the drafters of the 14th Amendment made it pretty clear. Well, I think it's even clearer that in favor of Donald Trump, because in 1866, John, there was something called the Civil Rights Act passed by Congress. In it, it says to be a U.S. citizen, you have to be born in the United States and you cannot be beholden to a foreign power. After that law was passed, Congress realized that another Congress could come down the pike and change the law, basically making African-American, former African-American slaves no longer citizens. So to make sure that did not happen, they decided to take that Civil Rights Act of 1866 and enshrined it in the Constitution. And that is what the 14th Amendment became, which is why the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof is essentially embraced or comes out of that Civil Rights Act of 1866 that literally says you cannot be subject to a foreign power. It all turns on, are you and your parents loyal to the United States? And if you're just passing through on the way to Hawaii for fun or you're broke into the country illegally, that does not make you loyal to the United States. And therefore you're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And thus you're not a citizen under the text of the 14th Amendment. And I think that's what the Supreme Court is going to say. And the only reason, John, that we haven't said it before is because there's never been an opportunity to get in front of the courts because no one had standing to raise these kinds of arguments until now. Jonathan Turley says that virtually no nation in Europe allows birthright citizenship. Are you aware of any country in the world that does aside from ours? No, of course not. The most valuable asset on the planet period is becoming a United States citizen. You will get to be a citizen of the greatest country that has ever existed in mankind's history. Right. That's the reality of it. So to think that you would hand these out just because you happen to be born here because your parents broke into the country is simply absurd. You know, U.S. citizenship is a lot more than just taking free candy at the doctor's office. It requires a lot more than that. Specifically, it requires loyalty to the country. This is your home. And it can't just be that your parents are passing through illegally or otherwise, and you happen to get born here. That is simply not enough to give you U.S. citizenship. And the text of the 14th Amendment sort of proves that out, as does the history. We'll see what the Supreme Court decides. It's going to be a fascinating week and a fascinating term. Mark Smith, thank you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

She doesn't have a plan. She copied Biden's plan. Our policies, our website, are copied and pasted right from Joe Biden's website. They're not even hers. Bidenomics is working. Bidenomics is working. We have the strongest economy in the world. Our economy is the strongest in the world. My Build Back Better framework. Our Build Back Better framework. To a steady and stable growth. Stable and steady growth. I've come so far since my inauguration. Our country has come a long way. Since President Biden and I took office. Nothing says her vision like copy and paste from the boss, does it? Right? I mean, come on.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

I will never apologize for defending America. I will protect our workers. I will protect our jobs. I will protect our borders. I will protect our family. Over the past four years, Kamala has orchestrated the most egregious betrayal that any leader in American history has ever inflicted upon our people. She broke it, she just broke the whole damn thing, but I will fix it and I'll fix it fast. We're going to do it. Come today with a message of hope for all Americans. With your vote Tuesday, I will end inflation. I will stop the massive invasion of criminals into our country, and I will bring back the American Dream.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

New report from the Wall Street Journal shows $100 at the grocery store just doesn't go as far as it did five years ago. Today, that same grocery list costs 36.5% more. Food prices, like any sort of basic necessity, are going to disproportionately affect poorer consumers because they have fewer dollars to spend. Items like beef, fruit snacks, and mayonnaise are more than 50% more expensive than back in 2019. and consider it.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.