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 03/21/2026 10:08:05 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Mar. 20, 2026) — As we enter the final days leading up to the oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, it may be prudent to review the briefs on the merits of President Trump and his opponents, as well as the myriad amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs that have been filed.
To begin with, as your humble servant has posited here, the merits Opening Brief of the President, authored by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is not merely persuasive, it is compelling. Read it for yourself. And as for the opposition’s merits brief, your servant has made his views known here. To summarize the opposition’s position: “Since we’ve been doing it wrong for so long, it would be inconvenient and unreasonable to make us do it right into the future.”
In plain English, General Sauer’s merits Opening Brief clearly articulates what the authors of the 14th Amendment meant and intended when they conditioned the creation of “birthright citizenship” in children born here to be “subject to the complete political jurisdiction” of the United States. They did not intend mere birth here to a non-resident, non-domiciled illegal alien mother to be all that was needed. Indeed, the crucial element of domicile is further emphasized – and with identical compelling impact – in General Sauer’s just filed merits Reply Brief.
While various other amici curiae opposing President Trump seek to perpetuate the mistaken, unconstitutional and even disingenuous policy of “birth tourism” fostered and exacerbated by the regime of “Robinette the Marionette” – aka “Dr. Jill’s meal ticket” – General Sauer’s Opening Brief explains why precisely the opposite intent was at the core of the amendment’s authors…, and it isn’t even close. ... continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2026/03/20/the-birthright-citizenship-homestretch/
(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. |
Excellent article, Commander. Thank you for posting it!
Domicile of origin is established by law at birth to every individual. It refers to the domicile of the person's parent, and is hard for the person to lose.[8] This means that it is not necessarily established based on where an individual was born or where their parents live.
[9] An example of domicile of origin was explained in Udny v Udny, where Udny's domicile of origin at birth was that of Scotland, even though he was born and lived in Tuscany and his father lived in England. The court made this determination based on the fact that Udny's father's domicile of origin was that of Scotland.[10] This means that even if a person leaves his or her country of origin with no intention to return to it, the person will still be domiciled there until they obtain a new domicile of choice.[10]
Chief Justice Roberts will just categorize Birthright Citizenship a tax on American citizens - and he is right.
Sauer’s briefs have indeed gone far beyond anything ever brought before the court especially in clarifying the mindset of the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment with regards to “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Won’t mean a thing in front of Pope Roberts, Sister Amy and Resident Apostate Gorsuch.
The Invasion and takeover of the Protestant edifice known as the United States cannot be impeded. If it means it will be Brazil with nukes, they care not. The Shining City must be repopulated with the grunting Orks of the global south.
The issue was a requirement for "complete" political jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment of 1868, as re-affirmed by Elk v. Wilkins of 1884, which was in conflict with "tribal" jurisdiction afforded to children of native americans located within reservation lands in the US.
Has any amicus brief mentioned the ‘Birth tourism’ hotspot, A.K.A. The Marianas Islands? 1.5 million “citizens” born there?
"While various other amici curiae opposing President Trump seek to perpetuate the mistaken, unconstitutional and even disingenuous policy of “birth tourism” fostered and exacerbated by the regime of “Robinette the Marionette” – aka “Dr. Jill’s meal ticket” – General Sauer’s Opening Brief explains why precisely the opposite intent was at the core of the amendment’s authors…, and it isn’t even close."
If illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, does this mean our government can conscript them to fight in our country’s military conflicts?
Exactly the type of argument the pro-aborts used on Sandra Day O'Connor to get her to retain a so-called “right” to abortion the first time it was challenged at SCOTUS. i.e. “Well, it's already been in place for awhile, and people expect to be able to get one, so...”
SCOTUS could/should also consider the point that Wong Kim Ark (1898) was not unanimous and was wrongly decided by the majority back then. It might be time for SCOTUS to do that, i.e., reverse the error of the 1898 decision in regards to what “subject to the jurisdiction” means in the 14th Amendment per the Congressional Record and debate per those who proposed, wrote, and passed the 14th Amendment. They have reversed other wrong past decisions. It’s time to reverse the non-unanimous, wrongly decided WKA (1898) SCOTUS decision.
9-0 keep status quo.
There needs to be an amendment to fix this.
The key phrase is “all
persons born in the United States” and you are lying to yourself if you think otherwise.
It has been a serious error to look to the USSC for relief.
In so doing, you are accepting their authority to re-write the Constitution to conform to what you wish were true, and after they rule 9-0 against you it will be more difficult to work for the Amendment which is obviously necessary to fix this defect in XIV.
Children of diplomats are excepted from XIV.
This argument actually makes the case for a literal interpretation of all (other) persons.
Indeed they do. As do 31 other countries mostly in the Americas. Odd though none of our enlightened European brethren offer jus soli.
Just ban all immigration until they end birth right citizenship
“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.”
Many babies of PRC moms never reside in any state. Mere popping out in the USA is insufficient.
The “and” is important. It means that the clause is merely retroactive as of the date of ratification.
born - past tense
naturalized - past tense
are - present (time of ratification [1868]) tense
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.