Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 01/26/2026 5:00:12 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
(Jan. 26, 2026) — INTRODUCTION
As dedicated P&E readers are well aware, there is now pending in the Supreme Court the case of Trump v. Barbara. The case involves a challenge to President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 regarding the meaning of “birthright citizenship” under the 14th Amendment. Following a post by the intrepid P&E Editor here, your humble servant addressed the issue here.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari review as to one of the two cases where President Trump had petitioned for review on Dec. 5, 2025. Now, the matter is proceeding before the Court through briefing of the merits and culminating in oral arguments, likely in early 2027.
Solicitor General John Sauer’s Opening Brief (“OB”) on the merits is – with but one minor editorial comment discussed in epilogue later – beyond merely persuasive: it is compelling. Moreover, that is a conclusion which the Supreme Court – assuming that a majority of its members will find the backbone to adhere to judicial principle – should confirm in its ultimate decision. As a side-note, and to its credit as well, the OB refers to “undocumented immigrants” by their true names: “illegal aliens.”
But do not take your humble servant’s word for it, as he may be seen as somewhat biased. Read the brief (linked above) yourself. That exercise will reveal and document that the authors of the 14th Amendment intended that it operate to confer U.S. citizenship on emancipated African slaves, and not to bestow such citizenship upon illegal aliens or, for example the offspring of such illegal aliens who have invaded this nation from Mexico, Guatemala, China or Somalia…, or, for that matter, from Sweden, France, Australia or Ireland.
ANALYSIS ... continue reading here: https://www.thepostemail.com/2026/01/26/revisiting-the-birthright-citizenship-and-nbc-issues/
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Everyone cheering this better understand what they’re asking for: a government that decides who counts as American.
That’s not border control. That’s national ID politics. Be careful what you wish for.
Unfortunately that is what it is coming down to. Something has to be decided. National ID is already here and has to for a while.
Everyone cheering this better understand what they’re asking for: a government that decides who counts as American.
Our government before Trump had already decided who counts as American. They decided anyone who was born in the USA no matter their legal status.
So, it is simply a government saying that decision was wrong.
The arguments for why it was wrong are clear, and pretty convincing.
Right, the government decides.
That’s the point.
You’re saying citizenship isn’t a right at all, it’s whatever the people in power feel like today.
So when the next democRAT administration decides your kids don’t qualify, that’s just ‘correcting a mistake,’ too?
You’re saying citizenship isn’t a right at all, it’s whatever the people in power feel like today.
So when the next democRAT administration decides your kids don’t qualify, that’s just ‘correcting a mistake,’ too?
Going through the Constitutional process is no small thing. It does not mean any future democRAT administration can reverse it, but of course democRAT administrations do not care about the Constitution, so you may be correct.
Thanks for posting.
From the article: “While Congress reenacted and retained the “citizen” status of children born “beyond sea” to U.S. citizen parents, they were no longer to be “considered” natural born citizens, but only “citizens” of the United States.”
I believe that children born to US Citizen Parents in the service of the Country (e.g., US Military stationed overseas) should be considered Natural Born provided they do not acquire another country’s citizenship.
If citizenship is a constitutional right, then it is a simple fact that the US Supreme Court has the final say regarding what the specific written words of the Constitution actually mean (no matter what the Founding Fathers may have suggested to the contrary). So, yes, citizenship is "whatever the people in power feel like today", since the high court judges are obviously part of the federal government and "people in power", and the membership of the court changes over time.
But perhaps you consider citizenship to be a God given right, or something founded in common law, in which case you are certainly welcome to your own beliefs...
;^)
During the Congressional discussions and debates of the 14A, it was clearly pointed out who was eligible for birthright citizenship.
This should be a clear victory that puts a stop to the Ted Kennedy cutout of birthright citizenship.
And all these Congressional discussions and debates are archived so DOJ’s lawyers can cite numerous references to the narrow band of those eligible.
It took 50 years to end Roe v Wade, this would be a nice bookend for the current SCOTUS.
Just curious what the point is to ping CDR Kerchner to his own post?
If the court rules in Pres. Trumps favor, I hope all the children born in the U.S. through birth tourism over the decades have their citizenship revoked retroactively.
half true
yes, 14A debates pointed out eligibility.
but it was in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) where it was clearly stated that children born on U.S. soil are citizens, including children of non-citizen parents.
Did Kennedy use the law to advantage? probably, but the way has been clear for well over 100 years. unless you wanted to call 19th century scotus into disrepute, we could debate about that i guess.
roe v wade was clearly bad law. activist liberal judges making up right of privacy. Citizenship law is clear as the writing. originalism is important, but it aint the whole story. especially considering the fact that the 1898 case was within living memory of the time of the writing the 14th.
dont destroy stare decisis just because you dont like the result. thats not Conservatism.
that’s activism. you’d fit well with the 1970s SCOTUS liberals.....
Too hard to find with FR Search.
probably telling their russian masters that someone is disagreeing
dont trust conservative sources. dont trust liberal sources. a true conservative trusts his own eyes. and i see judicial activism being promoted here.
That’s the plain truth
responding to:
“Just curious what the point is to ping CDR Kerchner to his own post?”
Yes, agree!
Only a Red Commie would seem to punish children for the sins of their parents.
Go ahead and put the parents in for 10 years hard labor for all i care, but you don’t punish innocent children. Only God decides the application of original sin. You’re either despicable or a Commie. And I’m leaning commie based on your cruelty
OK Usually if you “ping” someone it means you are calling them to the thread.
“If the court rules in Pres. Trumps favor, I hope all the children born in the U.S. through birth tourism over the decades have their citizenship revoked retroactively.”
————————
First, that will simply not happen. It will be applied prospectively starting when the court renders its decision. They will not take away rights that had been granted, even if wrongly so, that’s just not the way our system works.
Second, there’s a reason why our system doesn’t work that way, it is because we have compassion. Children being born, have no choice in the matter, they’re just here one day. They didn’t cross the border illegally, their parents, or at least one of them, did. If anybody should be punished, it is a parent or parents who performed the illegal act. If you had a modicum of compassion, you would change your mind.
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.