Posted on 02/18/2025 10:39:15 AM PST by Morgana
Since winning his election and taking office for his second term, President Donald J. Trump wasted no time sweeping up the messes left by the dark ages of the Biden presidency, including mass deporting the multitude of law-breaking people who invaded our sovereign borders. Rather than speaking up for the rights of American citizens violently ripped from their mothers’ wombs every day, the abortion-hungry Left has leapt to defend the cause of illegal aliens. In doing so, they deem illegal aliens in the womb worthy of greater legal protections than American children in the womb.
Main Idea:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) believes that an illegal alien should be protected under U.S. law, but that American children in the womb should not be. What You Missed:
In January 2025, the ACLU sued President Trump over an executive order that the Daily Caller reports would “withhold birthright citizenship against individuals born on American soil to parents living unlawfully in the country or on certain temporary visas.”
After he was sworn into office on Jan. 20, Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship. Outraged by this news, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) furiously filed a lawsuit against President Trump’s executive order the following day.
“Denying citizenship to U.S. born children is not only unconstitutional — it’s also a reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values,” Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said in a prepared statement. “Birthright citizenship is part of what makes the United States the strong and dynamic nation that it is.”
ACLU is seemingly horrified that newborns would be put in “harm’s way” with this executive action.
Where’s ACLU’s outrage over the estimated 2,800 American babies butchered every day from abortion? If they’re concerned about protecting illegal, law-breaking aliens and their preborn children, then they should be even more concerned about the alarming amount of America’s citizens being barbarically torn apart bone from flesh in the womb.
Ironically, Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, boldly stated, “We will not let this attack on newborns and future generations of Americans go unchallenged.”
If only Romero and the ACLU spoke this boldly FOR the little Americans in the womb. The ACLU advocates for non-citizen children in the womb as “anchors” for the United States social fabric, while at the same time, arguing that American children in the womb have no rights at all.
The baby-killing Planned Parenthood and ACLU are thick as thieves. They are so close that former President of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, was awarded Roger Baldwin Medal of Liberty, their highest honor, acknowledging a lifetime investment to further “civil liberties.”
There is nothing civil or liberating about celebrating an industrialized Goliath that murders tiny humans for blood money.
Demanding that killing American babies in the womb is “a right” and that violent dismemberment of tiny human arms, legs and skulls is “healthcare” on X, formerly known as Twitter, ACLU shows that they do not care about preborn children. They care more about playing politics with the most vulnerable among us.
Keep In Mind:
Despite what abortion supporters might say, we have a pro-life Constitution. These Constitutional protections for Americans do not begin when a child takes their first breath. Traditionally, our nation has a long history that has recognized children in the womb as people to be protected from intentional killing. The Declaration of Independence states that all Americans are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Why The 14th Amendment Matters:
The 14th Amendment states that no state can deny equal protection to any person:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” – Section 1, 14th Amendment
In 1868, the word person had “a settled public meaning that included every human being- children in the womb among them,” wrote Constitutional Scholar and Harvard Law graduate Josh Craddock. “As Dobbs recites, abortion was unlawful at common law during all stages of pregnancy, and the unborn child was considered a legal person whenever it would be to his benefit. State high courts leading up to 1868 declared that the unborn child throughout pregnancy ‘is a person’ and hence, under ‘civil and common law,’ ‘to all intents and purposes a child, as much as if born.’
“One early decision used language that bears a striking resemblance to the 14th Amendment to make the point: ‘A child in the womb of the mother is under the protection of the law, and possesses all the privileges of a living being.’ By the end of 1868, three-quarters of the states had supplemented the common law with statutory bans against abortion at all stages, many of which classified abortion as an ‘offense against the person’ and described the unborn victim of abortion as an ‘infant’ or ‘child.’” (emphasis added)
Fast forward to the Woodstock-Era when abortion was coming into play, lawyers cited the 14th Amendment and recognized that a child in the womb was a person entitled to equal protection of the laws.
Time Magazine reported that, “In the early 1970s, when lawyers representing the state of Texas argued Roe v. Wade before the U.S. Supreme Court, they argued that a fetus is a person. Because a fetus is a person, they told the Justices, a fetus is entitled to all the protections guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment including a right to ‘life.’”
Why This is Timely:
Recognizing 14th Amendment protections entitled to preborn Americans means that no state can deny equal protection or kill a person in the womb. There is no constitutional right to kill. The value and dignity of a little person in the womb doesn’t change based on its location or state line. That’s why at Students for Life Action (SFLAction), we fight nationwide recognition of the preborn as constitutional persons entitled to equal protection on the state and federal level.
The 14th Amendment addresses American citizenship stating that all “persons” are entitled to equal protections under the law and that no state can deny these protections to any person.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
President Trump’s recent executive order to end birthright citizenship to illegal aliens has stirred up national debate about who is protected as “persons” under the 14th Amendment. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley was asked by Fox News Sunday if he believes that Trump’s order would win in the courts. He shared a little-known fact that while the 14th Amendment was being drafted “some of the members of Congress said that they believed it did not extend birthright citizenship and that has fueled a lot of this debate.”
What’s Next:
Through this recent lawsuit against Trump, the ACLU allegedly demands illegal aliens be given more protection in the womb than preborn Americans in the womb. From the beginning, America has welcomed foreigners from far and wide and created a legal pathway to apply for citizenship. But illegal aliens have allegedly broken laws and have not gone through the legal pathway to citizenship and should not be given citizen privileges. As a sovereign nation, our founding fathers believed that our moral and legal obligation is to protect and secure American citizens first.
Founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson agreed saying, “My affections were first for my own country, and then, generally for all mankind.”
Not only have Constitutional signers advocated for this order of priorities, but newly elected Vice President JD Vance has recently re-introduced the idea of rightly ordered citizen responsibility, known as “ordo amoris”
As reported by USA Today: “J.D. Vance articulated the “Christian concept that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then, after that, you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.”
This practical principle used in public policy and immigration policy comes from Scripture.
“In Matthew 22, Jesus was asked, “Which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He answered in terms of precisely the concentric hierarchy that Vance articulated: “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and the first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Mt 22:37-40). This is the foundation for the ordo amoris or “order of love..”
Responsibility to God, family, neighbor, community, fellow citizens, then the rest of the world should be the order of one’s priorities. But the ACLU has backward priorities for who to take care of first. They want the 14th Amendment protections to extend to non-citizens, but do not want that extended to preborn American citizens. This disordering of priorities is a recipe for national disaster as millions of American babies are killed to the morbid applause of the ACLU.
At SFLAction, we believe in the flourishing of our country and have written a road map that gives a bright future to all preborn Americans. We must be relentless in our protection of preborn Americans because our lasting legacy as a nation depends on them, on our children.
Wonder how much the ALCU got, or gets, from USAid?
The badly written and often misused 14th Amendment is one of three Civil War Reconstitution Amendments meant to give former slaves full citizenship. That was the full intention of the ratifiers which has mandatory authority.
Anything else, especially Leftist attempts at more sweeping unconstitutional federal gov’t power, is poppycock.
Yep Defund the ACLU, Legal Aid (Legal Enabling), LawNY.org, Southern Poverty Law Center, et al.
PATIENCE, GRASSHOPPER-—MUSK WILL TELL US.
Alan Colmes was a card carrying member of the ACLU , tells you a lot
"President Trump’s recent executive order to end birthright citizenship to illegal aliens has stirred up national debate about who is protected as “persons” under the 14th Amendment. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley was asked by Fox News Sunday if he believes that Trump’s order would win in the courts. He shared a little-known fact that while the 14th Amendment was being drafted “some of the members of Congress said that they believed it did not extend birthright citizenship and that has fueled a lot of this debate.” [emphasis added]"
From related threads ...
Noting that Rep. John Bingham is the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), one of the members of Congress that Mr. Turley referred to in general was probably Sen. Jacob Howard. In fact, it was Senator Howard who requested that the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase be included in that section.
"14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born [all emphases added] or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Regarding Sen. Howard's intention for his jurisdiction phrase, the congressional record gives us his speech for including it in Section 1, his phrase best interpreted as rejecting birthright citizenship imo.
More specifically, he explained his phrase in the context of natural law and national law, these laws referenced below just as national law.
"...[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law [all emphases added] a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." —Speech on the proposed 14th Amendment
So we know the intension of the lawmaker who suggested the jurisdiction phrase.
The national law that Howard was referring to is probably the "mysterious" Law of Nations (LoN), international law at the time, which is referenced in Constitution, especially in the context of today's challenges to the natural born citizenship requirement for POTUS.
In fact, elite desperate Democrats trying to control the Oval Office seem to argue that since natural born citizen isn't defined in the Constitution, it should simply be ignored.
Getting back to 14A citizenship qualifications, since Howard explained the qualifications in the context of national law, consider that the justices who decided the Wong Kim Ark case in Ark's favor possibly overlooked that LoN indicates that he was born a Chinese citizen under international law imo, inheriting his citizenship from his father regardless where he was born.
"[Law of Nations,] Book I, Chapter 19, section 212:The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children [all emphases added]; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
But we still have the question, or so it seems, of the importance of LoN in our constitutional republic.
Actually, it turns out that Justice John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, had clarified in an official note that the Law of Nations is as much U.S. law as the Constitution is.
Excerpted from the writings of Chief Justice John Jay:
"That you may percieve more clearly the Extent and objects of your Inquiries, it may be proper to observe that the Laws of the united States admit of being classed under three Heads or3 Descriptions—1st. all Treaties made under the authority of the united States.—John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, 22 May 17932dly. The Laws of nations [emphasis added]—
3dly. The Constitution, and Statutes of the united States—"
So the LoN section that Sen. Howard was possibly referring to in his speech (imo) seems to support Howard's intention for his jurisdiction phrase that children born to foreigners and aliens in the U.S. are not automatically citizens.
Finally, since neither of the terms “birthright citizenship” or “anchor baby” appear in Section 1 of 14A, these terms are interpolations and additions to that section (imo) which the Supreme Court has condemned in general.
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters [all emphases added]; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction [spin] and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.