Category: Supreme Court

JUDICIAL BLINDERS AND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Judicial blinders and myopathy characterize the thinking of jurists from our lowest courts to the Supreme Court of the United States. Judges at every level, legal scholars, and legal pundits dissect and compartmentalize local, state, and national laws and the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments. This thinking elevates parts of sentences, clauses and phrases, paragraphs, Sections, Articles, and Amendments over other parts of these documents. In my opinion, these judicial blinders and myopathy have tainted juris prudence in the United States almost form the time the Constitution was ratified by “We the People,” not judges. The result has been almost continuous social and political turmoil. This thinking has also led to the idea that the decisions of judges regarding the meaning of state and national constitutions carry more weight and importance than the actual words of these constitutions. In other words, the opinions of judges, concerning the legal meaning state and national constitutions, are more important than the actual words of the state and national constitutions resulting in the concept of judicial “precedent.” Opinions of judges supersede the actual words of our constitutions which were ratified by “We the People.” Is this a judicial oligarchy?

President Trump issued an Executive Order, EO, which could end “Birthright Citizenship” and U. S. House of Representatives Republicans have introduced a bill for the same purpose. The Federal Court in Washington State has blocked implementation of this EO. That decision is being appealed to a higher Court. The judicial opinions and debate among judicial scholars and pundits are focused on these five words in the first sentence of Amendment XIV, Section 1, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Amendment XIV contains 433 words. The five words being debated comprise only 1.1% of the words in the Amendment. This dissection and compartmentalization of a phrase in Amendment XIV elevates the importance of these five words over the rest of Amendment XIV, including Section 5.

Although the intent of the words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was hotly debated during congressional discussion of Amendment XIV, Sen. Jacob Howard, Republican of Michigan, proposed the Citizenship Clause and stated on May 30, 1866:

“Mr. HOWARD: This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”

Amendment XIV was ratified in 1868.

The Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS, decided in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) that everyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States. This decision is the origin of the SCOTUS “precedent” for “Birthright Citizenship” contrary to the opinion of the Senator Howard who proposed the clause in Amendment XIV, Section 1. Key points of the SCOTUS majority decision in this landmark case are heighted below:

“The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “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 . . . .

Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford . . . .

But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.”

Today’s issues related to “Birthright Citizenship,” include “Birthright Tourism” and children born in the United States to “Illegal Aliens” who entered our nation illegally. Today’s issues are far different from the citizenship of former slaves, and the citizenship of the children born in the United States to Chinese parents, forbidden citizenship under the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, not working for the “Emperor of China,” and “permanently domiciled” in the United States. Judicial blinders and myopathy seem to hide the Constitutional solution to the present “Birthright Citizenship” dilemma, Amendment XIV, Section 5. “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

In accordance with Amendment XIV, Section 5, U.S. Congressman Brian Babin (TX-36) introduced the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2023 (H.R. 6612). “This legislation has 21 original cosponsors and will ensure America properly implements Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution – ending birth tourism.” After reintroduction of this legislation in 2025, Congressman Babin said,

“This legislation ensures that automatic citizenship is granted only to children born in the United States with at least one parent who meets one of the following criteria:

  1. A citizen or national of the United States
  2. A lawful permanent resident whose residence is in the United States; or
  3. A lawful immigrant performing active service in the United States Armed Forces…..”

America’s citizenship laws should reflect fairness and respect for the rule of law,” “This common-sense legislation corrects decades of misuse and closes the loophole that incentivizes illegal immigration and exploits U.S. citizenship through birth tourism. Citizenship is one of our nation’s most precious privileges. By introducing this legislation, we are taking an important step to restore integrity to our immigration system and prioritize the interests of American citizens.”

The question that “We the People” need to ask SCOTUS and the US Congress is simple. Are the five words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” contained in Amendment XIV, Section 1 more important than the fifteen words, including “by appropriate legislation,” contained in Amendment XIV, Section 5. Hopefully, our national legislators and courts will rid themselves of their judicial blinders and myopathy and realize that this is a Constitutional solution to “Birthright Citizenship” in accordance with Amendment XIV, Section 5. Consequently, in my opinion, the Birthright Citizenship Act enactment does not require a Constitutional Amendment to become the law of the land solving the current “Birthright Citizenship” issues existing in the United States.

Join the fray. All of the America ‘s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

DEMOCRAT LOGIC: CLOSE GOVERNMENT EVERY ELECTION YEAR

 

A red sign that says no to the capitol building.
Democrat logic indicates that we should close government every election year.

Politicians are hypocrites regardless of their party affiliation. That is why politicians have lower approval ratings than used car salesmen or media personalities especially those in the news industry. Consequently, the hypocrite argument is no longer relevant in any issue under discussion, including the Supreme Court nomination and advice and consent process. Hypocrisy aside, since current Democrat logic dictates that Presidents should not perform their Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Associate Justice in an election year; and the Senate should not perform its Constitutional duty of Advice and Consent in an election year, the entire Legislative Branch of the federal government should be in recess every election year. That is what current Democrat logic dictates: close government every election year. The results of each election should determine the congressional agenda which could only be enacted during non-election years. Similarly, if a vacancy on the Supreme Court occurs during an election year, the Supreme Court should be in recess until the vacancy is filled in the year following the election, and the vacancy is filled. That is current Democrat logic carried to its full and unconstitutional extent, close government every election year.

Therefore, if according to current Democrat logic, Presidents cannot fulfill their Constitutional responsibilities and the Senate cannot fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities in an election year, then the Legislative Branch should not be able to fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities in an election year. Additionally, according to current Democrat logic, the Supreme Court should not be able to fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities if a vacancy occurs during an election year until the vacancy is filled in the year following an election. This ridiculous argument is the logical conclusion of current Democrat logic.

This argument over the political process surrounding selection of Supreme Court Justices and the resulting rancor illustrates that we have, in my opinion, a flawed Constitution . It is also my opinion that there is a solution to the flaw in our Constitution.

To the political hypocrites on both sides of the Supreme Court vacancy argument, I have just one thing to say,Shut up, follow the Constitution, and do your Constitutional job.”

Conversely, follow Democrat logic: close government every election year.

Either way; We the People  will be watching, listening, and voting.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

CHUCKY! WHICH MAINSTREAM?

 

A painting of a waterfall with rocks and trees.
Which mainstream? Mainstream in the United States is a political misnomer. We have at least two: the progressive left and the conservative right mainstreams.

Contrary to the opinion, hopes, dreams, and wishes of progressives and the Democrat Party, the river of political and economic life in the United States of America does not have one monolithic mainstream. The United States of America has at least two distinct and virtually irreconcilable mainstreams or currents. Consequently, no single mainstream exists. The population of the left lives in large population urban centers primarily located along our coasts, the small blue areas in the 2016 county by county Presidential Election map. The left is a philosophically Marxist, socialist, progressive, liberal, Democrat mainstream that believes in a living evolving Constitution. The left cast approximately 2.3% more popular votes for Secretary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election. The right mainstream covers the vast majority of the nation, the red counties of the 2016 Presidential election map. In the Constitutional Electoral College, voters on the right gave President Trump 306 Electoral votes compared to 234 votes for Secretary Clinton, a 13.3% majority. The right is philosophically conservative supporting capitalism, the importance of our Judeo-Christian heritage, individualism and personal responsibility, Constitutional “original intent,” fiscal conservatism, and limited government.

In discussions of the Federal Judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, only the left makes the statement that the nominee must represent the œmainstream of America. Since no mainstream exists in the river of political life in the United States, the statement by Democrat Senators regarding Judge Neil Gorsuch is nothing more than demagoguery. They need to stop deferring from reality and state truthfully that they would only be satisfied by a Supreme Court Justice nominee who is philosophically Marxist and a judicial activist. It sounds so all inclusive, but the statement includes only the left’s mainstream. Members of the Democrat Party simply need to state their position openly and honestly. We the People, in the “Deplorable Class,” do not like “Establishment Speak.”

Members of the Democrat Party need to understand one thing.
No one political mainstream exists in the United States of America.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

THE “TRUMP TRAIN,” A NEW OR TIMELY TEA PARTY?

 

A train with the words " all aboard trump trains ".
The Trump Train carries a larger portion of the total conservative movement and forgotten Democrats. Looks like the track gs to 2024.

The Trump Train movement envisioned and then activated by Donald Trump may be what Tea Party founders wished they had formulated. In my opinion, the reason Donald Trump succeeded where others failed, is the fact that the Trump Train carries a larger portion of the total conservative movement and forgotten Democrats. The leaders of the Tea Party movement restricted their vision to balanced budgets, a smaller less intrusive government at all levels, and reestablishment of constitutional original intent rejecting social and religious conservatives. President Elect Trump asked evangelicals, labor oriented Reagan Democrats from the Rust Belt, and the Fly Over rural voters to climb aboard the Trump Train.  Additionally, Trump’s call for economic reforms, lower taxes, and regulatory reform, incorporated significant elements of the Tea Party agenda. All of the other groups were left out or marginalized by the Tea Party movement, the Democrat party, and, during the last two cycles, the Republican Party.

For followers of Biblical Christianity, evangelicals, the fact that President Elect Trump asked them and important Catholic leaders to formulate religious advisory groups is extremely encouraging. He quickly demonstrated an understanding that religious liberty has been under attack by the courts at all levels, government at all levels, and the left’s educational dictatorship. Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees also encouraged the support of evangelicals. Consequently, he received the highest level of support from the evangelical communities of the last four Republican Presidential candidates. This masterfully crafted coalition on board the Trump Train ushered in the Trump Presidency.

Biblical Christians aboard the Trump Train will watch the actions of President Trump in his first hundred days, first year, and first two years with hope, prayers, and wary skepticism. In my opinion, President Trump is on a very short leash. My prayer is that he will only tug lightly on that leash and succeed beyond all our hopes and prayers.

SO FAR, THE TRUMP TRAIN HAS ENOUGH BELLS AND WHISTLES TO GET US TO 2024.

THEN IT WILL BE PENCE24 GIVES US 8 MORE.
WHAT A FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM THAT WILL BE!

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.