Search Posts

A political meme graphic divided into two halves on a dark background with American flag imagery. The top half, titled "FIVE WHO BUILT AMERICA" in white bold text, shows portrait-style images of five presidents in color/painted style: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump, each labeled with a single word underneath their names. The bottom half, titled "FIVE WHO BROKE IT" in red bold text, shows black-and-white portrait photos of five other presidents: James Buchanan, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, each also labeled with a single negative word. A "VS" separates the two halves, and a watermark/handle "@patriot_phoneman" appears near the middle.

Text in image: FIVE WHO BUILT AMERICA WASHINGTON LINCOLN JEFFERSON REAGAN TRUMP FOUNDATION UNION LIBERTY STRENGTH AMERICA FIRST FOUNDATION. UNION. LIBERTY. STRENGTH. AMERICA FIRST. VS @patriot_phoneman FIVE WHO BROKE IT BUCHANAN WILSON CARTER OBAMA BIDEN FAILURE BUREAUCRACY WEAKNESS DIVISION DECLINE FAILURE. BUREAUCRACY. WEAKNESS. DIVISION. DECLINE.

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

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.

So how much power, and we're talking about influence here, do they have on the GOP, especially over the long run? - Yeah, over the long run. That's what I think is so important here. And it's not just about Donald Trump. It's about the Make America movement. Again, that's what we're talking about. Make America Great Again movement. And it is as powerful as it has ever been because I want you to take a look here. GOP who view MAGA favorably. Two years ago when Donald Trump was running for term number two, it was 74%. Today, look at this, it's 78% of Republicans who view the Make America Great Again movement favorably. So we're talking about something that, in my opinion, will very much be able to outlast Donald Trump. Trump is in term number two. He can't run for a term number three, but the bottom line is this. What he brought into the GOP looks like it's going to last long beyond him. - It's a very populous movement. I am curious because J.D. Vance would then be the next standard bearer of this movement. Where is the GOP on how they feel about him? - Yeah, okay, so obviously J.D. Vance, the Vice President of the United States, at this point looks like a favorite for the Republican nomination come 2028. And one of the reasons why he looks like a favorite is because the Republican base loves J.D. Vance. What are we talking about here? Someone who really represents the Make America Great Again movement. This is somebody, a year ago, his favorable rating among Republicans, 81%. Latest market university law school poll, look at this. 84%, 84%, so if anything his favorable rating is somewhat up from where it was a year ago, after a year of Trump, and of course that matches what we see when it comes to MAGA, right? It matches what we see coming to MAGA, whereby it was 74, and now it's 78%. If anything, MAGA's grip on the GOP, and it seems like the next in line to be the next standard bearer of MAGA, both of them, their favorable ratings are actually up after a year of Donald Trump's second term.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.