Today, there were four votes at SCOTUS for the right reading of the 14th amendment. The fight to restore American citizenship and retake our nation begins in earnest today. [partial TRANSCRIPT of 1 min video]

X.com ^ | Jun 30, 2026 | Theo Wold @RealTheoWold

[ransomnote]

ransomnote: The original post contains a good summary of the first White Pill discussed in the video. Below it, I transcribed the second white pill from the video.

Theo Wold

@RealTheoWold

There is a whitepill from the Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship.

When I worked in the 45 White House, I drafted President Trump's original birthright citizenship executive order.

At the time I was laughed out of rooms by senior legal officials at the White House who told me it wouldn't get a single vote at the Supreme Court.

Today, there were four votes at SCOTUS for the right reading of the 14th amendment.

The fight to restore American citizenship and retake our nation begins in earnest today.

 

TRANSCRIPT BEGINS at 23 seconds into the video~~~

Theo Wold: The other White Pil here is now more Americans than ever, not just eggheads like me, more Americans than ever know how serious this problem is, that we have millions of refugees, false assylum claimants, illegal birth tourists, coming into this country and depriving the nation of the rights that actually belong to US citizens.

So, that's the White Pill, and look, it's a massive disappointment, a massive defeat, but going forward, the fight to protect American citizenship begins today.

~~~END OF TRANSCRIPT

---

TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Unfortunately, getting a fifth vote is going to be extremely difficult.

[Jim W N]

The Fourteenth Amendment was puprosely badly written so these kinds of trevsties could be undertaken.

What matters is what the RATIFIERS thought it meant and the ratifiers thought it meant that is was a Civil War Reconstruction amendment that reinstated former slaves to citizenship. That is all it was ratified to do.

Why do I say that? Because there is not a scintilla of a record of any debate about giving the federal gov’t sweeping powers to enforce the first ten amendments and things like what is natural born citizen.

This is a bogus Supreme Court decision. It is not supported by the Constitution or case precedent and needs to be ignored and nullified.

[Governor Dinwiddie]

Smirking John Roberts and the lady kook with "collectible" chilluns.

[Frank Drebin]

But not impossible.

[No name given]

Agreed.

[No name given]

Sadly.

[convoter2016]

Suppose Sotomayor suddenly had to resign from the Supreme Court for health reasons, Trump can nominate a replacement. This time Trump shouldn’t nominate someone like Amy Coney Barrett.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

But not impossible.

No, but we'd have to get damn lucky.

I'm not disappointed that the Court struck down Trump's EO, but I'm extremely disappointed that they precluded Congress from addressing it with legislation.

[Fledermaus]

They wrote it just fine. They just didn’t think 160 years later people would be so stupid.

[Merrick]

Hear, hear!

[moviefan8]

I found a case that is a precident for jus soli. I haven't seen it elsewhere here.

https://www.cetient.com/case/lynch-v-clarke-5701063

Clark v Lynch. (1844)

Lynch v. Clarke established that children born in the United States to temporary foreign visitors are natural-born U.S. citizens.

Case Background

The case involved Julia Lynch, born in New York City in 1819 to Irish parents who were temporarily visiting the United States. Her uncle, Thomas Lynch, died in 1833, leaving property that became the subject of a dispute. John Clarke claimed the property, arguing that Julia, as the child of foreign parents, was an alien and therefore ineligible to inherit under New York law, which barred aliens from inheriting land

Legal Issue

The central question was whether Julia Lynch was a U.S. citizen at birth, despite her parents being aliens temporarily residing in the country. This determination was crucial because only citizens could inherit property under New York law

Court’s Reasoning

The court examined the common law principle of jus soli, which grants citizenship to anyone born within the territory of a sovereign, regardless of parental nationality, except for children of foreign diplomats. The court concluded that Julia Lynch was a natural-born citizen because her parents’ stay in the U.S. was temporary and they had no intention of abandoning their native country permanently

The court emphasized that birth within the dominions and allegiance of the United States conferred citizenship, aligning with longstanding English common law

Significance

Lynch v. Clarke is historically significant as one of the earliest U.S. cases affirming birthright citizenship for children of temporary foreign visitors. It influenced the understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, which later codified that all persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens, with exceptions only for children of diplomats or hostile occupying forces

The case reinforced the principle that citizenship is determined by place of birth rather than parental nationality in most circumstances.

Key Takeaway

The ruling in Lynch v. Clarke established that jus soli applies in the United States, ensuring that children born on U.S. soil, even to non-citizen parents temporarily present, are natural-born citizens. This case remains a foundational precedent in U.S. citizenship law and the interpretation of birthright citizenship.

[Jim W N]

The key is that the child’s parents were LEGALLY in the U.S. unlike so many illegals and their babies.

[moviefan8]

Wong Kim Ark and later cases shows that illegal aliens are subject to the laws of the United States.

Jurisdiction Clause

https://legalclarity.org/what-does-subject-to-the-jurisdiction-thereof-mean/

Under the rule established by Wong Kim Ark and reinforced by later cases, birthright citizenship applies to children born in the United States to lawful permanent residents, temporary visitors, and undocumented immigrants alike. The parents’ immigration status does not determine whether their child is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

The Supreme Court addressed the status of undocumented immigrants directly in Plyler v. Doe (1982). That case involved a Texas law denying public education to children who were in the country without authorization. The Court struck down the law and held that the 14th Amendment’s protections extend to every person within a state’s territorial boundaries, regardless of how they entered the country.6 The Court reasoned that a person’s unlawful entry does not place them outside the jurisdiction of the state where they physically reside. If you are present in the United States and subject to its laws — meaning you can be arrested, taxed, and prosecuted — you are within its jurisdiction.

---

From Wong Kim Ark.

I think the key part in the ruling that explains this is below.

His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;”

---

Wong Kim Ark (1898)

https://perma.cc/C5PG-SQSP

Plyer vs Doe (1982)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/

[Jim W N]

Both Marie Elizabeth Elg and Wong Kim Ark were born on U.S. soil to parents who were here legally but not U.S. citizens. )

Argument for Ark and chidren of LEGAL residents of the U.S. but not citzens:

Since around 1900, (SC) rulings have become less and less valid because SC has gradually moved away from basing their decisions on the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. But their ruling on NBC appear to be based on sound application of the Constitution.

In Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1938, the Court of Appeals noted as part of the basis for their decision that...

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, 1898 [the Court found that] [W]hen the Constitution was adopted, the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.

It appears the Court of Appeals in Elg (1939) agrees with Ark (1898) decison.

(Both Marie Elizabeth Elg and Wong Kim Ark were born on U.S. soil to parents who were here legally but not U.S. citizens. )

Again, the Constitution is properly applied as written and ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD and intended. What matters is what the ratifiers of the Constitution considered an NBC was. The Supreme Court decisions based on the good-faith and sound finding of original understanding of NBC in the Constitution is, therefore, legal precedent concerning NBC.

Some argue that the term "NBC" is not specifically used in Ark or Elg, but these cases revolve around citizenship based on birth on U.S. soil, which is exactly what NBC is. An NBC is a citizen automatically because he was born on U.S. soil. He is “naturally” and automatically a citizen needing no further processing to become a U.S. citizen. He becomes a citizen under “natural” (birth) circumstances, exactly as Elg, Ark.

[moviefan8]

Plyer vs Doe (1982) dealt with undocumented immigrants. They are subject to the laws of the United States.