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 07/01/2026 7:00:48 AM PDT by Twotone
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the principal dissenting opinion in Trump v. Barbara, where the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled on Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s executive order barring birthright American citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens and temporary visa holders is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
In his dissenting opinion, Thomas writes that “both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race.”
“Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States,” Thomas writes:
Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority. They “fought and bled in the same battles,” “gained and gloried in the same victories,” and were “liable to be called upon to defend [America] in time of war” alongside every other citizen. The Citizenship Clause thus guaranteed them the “dignity and glory of American citizenship,” so as to ensure that they would never be treated as second-class under the law. [Emphasis added]
The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors were attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war. Americans, consistent with their settler ethos, believed that citizens were the people who called a place home. Accordingly, domicile—a person’s legal home—played a key role in both state and national citizenship in America. A person was a “citizen” of the state where he had his “domicil.” When foreigners temporarily visited, their “national character” was unchanged. Such visitors were “strangers,” not “subjects.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.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. |
Justice Thomas is so right.
Viva Frei on X had a similar analysis on the other Roberts & Barrett betrayal.
Excerpt:
SCOTUS RULINGS UPDATE AND ANALYSIS:
You want to know what “motivated reasoning” looks like?
2 Supreme Court decisions today. One on “Same Day” election, the other on Trump’s Executive Authority to fire - FOR CAUSE - an alleged criminal on the fed.
In order to get out of the “same day” voting, the Court (under Amy Coney Barrett) dispenses of 200 years of history and precedent by saying “...statutes do not ‘tra[p] in amber’ every contemporary practice on the same subject matter.”
When it comes to denying Trump the authority to fire - FOR CAUSE - an alleged criminal on the fed, they write: “and would not so quickly unsettle this “special arrangement sanctioned by history.”
This is the definition of “motivated reasoning”.
When you want to get to your desired conclusion of counting ballots for 5 extra days, you disregard 200 years of precedent and history.
And when you want to get to your desired conclusion of denying the Commander in Chief the ability to fire - FOR CAUSE - you invoke 100+ years of history and precedent.
Rubbish.
Judicial cowardice.
Judicial corruption.
Thy name is Barrett and Roberts.
https://x.com/thevivafrei/status/2071754935314591867?s=20
Excerpt:
Hell, they are probably registered to vote democrat at birth....
Bkmk
They “fought and bled in the same battles,” “gained and gloried in the same victories,” and were “liable to be called upon to defend [America] in time of war” alongside every other citizen.
I looked it up and was reminded of something we'd forgotten. Both sides of the civil war conscripted (drafted) men for their military. Lincoln drafted former slaves that had just been freed by the emancipation proclamation. Then it hit me, the U.S. never drafted foreigners. Sure we've let foreigners join our military. But did we ever force them to join?
So maybe a good litmus test for who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" today, at least for men, is if you're expected to sign up with the Selective Service System (sign up for the draft). If you're a man and you don't have to, then you're not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore your kids aren't citizens.
Just a thought.
It's the amendment itself which is about gay marriages and other things. There's no way the judges are doing any hijacking!
Clarence Thomas claims that the 14th Amendment is just merely only a slavery amendment, saying that:
It was enacted for freed slaves such as Dred Scott, who had ‘a domicile’ here and therefore were entitled to sue as citizens. - Clarence Thomas dissent
It was enacted for freed slaves such as Dred Scott, who had ‘a domicile’ here and therefore were entitled to sue as citizens. - Clarence Thomas dissent
The ultimate problem is that the 14th Amendment was Winner’s Justice, packing in things that would have shocked the founders.
Here you are sounding crackers again. You want to believe this is just a left wing judge problem, when in fact it is a terribly written amendment problem.
Go over to Instapundit, which is a conservative/libertarian blog for lawyers. You will find person after person who believes the 14th amendment is badly written, and none of them are liberals, or favor "left wing judges."
You just refuse to see the problem as it is; a badly written amendment.
Absolutely correct interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Instapundit is somehow better than Clarence Thomas. lol
Roe, Lawrence, and Obergefell are examples.
It is not a contest between the two. They are both right.
Either the 14th is a narrow slavery amendment as Thomas argues or the 14th is Santa Claus as you and Instapundit argue. And your friends on the judicial left also view the 14th as Santa Claus.
It cannot be both Santa and a narrow slavery amendment. One must be picked, but only one.
Clarence Thomas is always right. He is right in this case as well, by definition.
The man is brilliant and one of the greatest Supreme Court jurists in our history. I am going to really miss him when he is gone.
That said, we were really cheated when Judge Bork was kept off theSCOTUS by Ted “Burn in Hell” Kennedy.
Judge Bork also had a similar view point here to Clarence Thomas’.
He was not a supporter of the 14th-amendment-as-Santa idea.
Bork’s main concepts though were the ideas of incorporation. The Incorporation Doctrine is not of the 14th Amendment.
The Incorporation Doctrine was birthed specifically from judicial activists using the 14th amendment not all that differently than a Palestinian with a human shield.
No, that's just you trying to put words in people's mouths. You are offering "the fallacy of false choice."
The answer is that the courts don't look at "intent", they look at "text", and the text of that amendment is terrible.
Thank you! Another litmus test, can you try them for Treason? No? Not a citizen, child should not be a citizen.
It was not badly written. They knew what it meant and the intent.
They badly judged that 160 years later people would become morons that can’t read.
Time to force everybody illegally here in the U.S. to register for the Selective Service and see how quickly their lawyers start to complain they are not Subject to U.S. laws.
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.