Posted on 04/01/2026 6:45:19 AM PDT by CFW
The Court will hear oral arguments this morning at 10:00 in Trump v. Barbara.
Issue(s): Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.
The key arguments in the birthright citizenship case here:.
Audio of oral arguments here:
Scotusblog is liveblogging here:
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
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,
Jim
SCOTUS ping!
The most important decision I can recall in my lifetime. If scotus gets this wrong, the grand experiment of the untied states of America is over.
Oh wait for the hysterics, if Trump wins. And can we send our favorite Minneapolis, that rhymes with runt, back to Somalia. New elections, with voter ID. I would prefer a litmus test... Islamic... no public office for you. Muslims cannot be trusted, it’s a lying Satanic death cult.
Agreed. This should be a slam dunk 8-1 decision in favor of Trump.
But with this court it’s 50-50 at best.
L
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...”
I read that countless times and to me it seems it’s referring to people who have spent most of their lives living in the USA after being born in the USA which lines up with former slaves not some anchor baby dumped over the border by some breeding cow from China.
It depends how much Roberts is paid off.
Fingers crossed, but expecting them to cower and rule 6-3 for invaders.
Or blackmailed.
Yep, I don’t trust that punk as far as I can throw him. I think he’s worse than Jackson and Sotomayor. This is the guy who made the most unconstitutional ruling in US history, that the US government could force the people to buy a companies product (Obamacare) or punish them.
It should be retroactive going back two generations.
Exactly correct.
Nope...a 9-0 NOT in favor of Trump...
No one will convince me that Robers is not a puppet to influences monetary and blackmail related. Information on close friends and associations suggests he is also politically aligned with forces inimical to America as created & envisioned.
“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
******
Shall is normally used in the Constitution for the future tense.
Amendment X uses “are reserved”.
Reserve means “to keep back or save for future or special use”
The citizenship clause is at most a one-time (1868) grant.
******
The fact that the writers didn’t use the oft used Constitutional word “shall” matters. It was the obvious choice. It would have accomplished what they undoubtedly intended.
******
Also consider the citizenship of babies born in the USA with parents having citizenship from the country of India.
The babies can get Indian citizenship upon application, but they are not born with it.
Why does India have such a system? Probably so that babies of citizens of India don’t run afoul of the complete jurisdiction requirement.
******
“If birth in the US alone would constitute US citizenship (particularly following Wong Kim Ark of 1898), then there would have been no need for the Indian Citizenship Act (Snyder Act) of 1924.”
It would be silly to say that a baby of Mexican Apaches if popped out in hospital room in El Paso would be an American citizen under Amendment XIV but a baby of American Apaches if popped out in the adjoining hospital room would not.
Links not working for me.
I too believe it’s the most important SCOTUS decision of my life.
I also give it 50-50, I do not trust Kavanaugh, Roberts or especially Coney-Barrett to do the right thing.
Trump himself is appearing before SCOTUS today, it’s that important:
Fox News:
“President Trump says he’s going to Supreme Court Wednesday for expected birthright citizenship arguments.”
Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett tend to disappoint me. I’m afraid neither of them are going to be willing to disrupt the status quo.
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.