President Trump to Attend SCOTUS Oral Arguments on Birthright Citizenship

[Kamaji]

Jackson will be an irrelevancy; her vote will not be the deciding vote.  I call it 8-1 against Trump.

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/Liz_Wheeler/status/2039407537196257449

It also means that those Iranian Mullahs who have been shouting "Death to America" for 47 years have won regardless of anything going on today in that country.

[mystery-ak]

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji B. Jackson argued Wednesday that a temporary visitor can owe local allegiance to a foreign country simply by being present on their soil, even when committing a crime.

"I, a U.S. citizen, am visiting Japan. And what it means is that... if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me," Jackson told ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang.

"It's allegiance meaning can they control you as a matter of law. I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it," she added.

Jackson argued that even temporary visitors can owe allegiance of foreign nations simply by being in that country.
Posted by Louis Casiano

[libertybele]

Birthright citizenship is, was and if continued to be allowed, will be a disaster!! It will mean the downfall of America.  Perhaps that doesn't bother those that don't give a darn about this country but it sure as heck doesn't sit well with patriots.

Birthright citizenship means those who sacrificed their lives and fortunes did so in vain.

[libertybele]

https://twitter.com/Liz_Wheeler/status/2039407537196257449

It also means that those Iranian Mullahs who have been shouting "Death to America" for 47 years have won regardless of anything going on today in that country.

Sickening.  Absolutely sickening. 

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2039443551990214718

[Kamaji]

Birthright citizenship is, was and if continued to be allowed, will be a disaster!! It will mean the downfall of America.  Perhaps that doesn't bother those that don't give a darn about this country but it sure as heck doesn't sit well with patriots.

Birthright citizenship means those who sacrificed their lives and fortunes did so in vain.

Then get your f**king act together, get off your couch, stop being a keyboard warrior, and organize to change the Constitution.

[Kamaji]

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji B. Jackson argued Wednesday that a temporary visitor can owe local allegiance to a foreign country simply by being present on their soil, even when committing a crime.

"I, a U.S. citizen, am visiting Japan. And what it means is that... if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me," Jackson told ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang.

"It's allegiance meaning can they control you as a matter of law. I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it," she added.

Jackson argued that even temporary visitors can owe allegiance of foreign nations simply by being in that country.
Posted by Louis Casiano

Wow.  Proving once again that even a stopped clock can get the time right occasionally. 

Being subject to the jurisdiction of a sovereign precisely means that one owes allegiance to that sovereign, and that means that one has an obligation to follow that sovereigns laws, or suffer the consequences.  It is a granular matter, not a single event binary either/or, and a person who has disregarded their obligation with respect to one action still owes alllegiance to the sovereign on everything else.  That is precisely what justifies treating illegal presence as a continuing violation, with each day of illegal presence counting as a new violation.

Will wonders never cease.

[libertybele]

Then get your f**king act together, get off your couch, stop being a keyboard warrior, and organize to change the Constitution.

First of all tone it down.  I don't know who you think you are, but you know nothing about me, nor what I do. Secondly, this isn't about amending the Constitution. If that is what you think is needed, then perhaps you should heed your own advice and organize to amend the Constitution. Obviously you are fine with birthright citizenship and yes, you are entitled to your opinion.

[Fishrrman]

Kamaji:
"get off your couch, stop being a keyboard warrior, and organize to change the Constitution."

Not possible, never going to happen.
Not in the USA as it is now (and is becoming).
But you KNOW that.
Yet you posted it, anyway.

I'm on record in this forum for years now, stating that the Constitution (as it's currently written and amended) can no longer protect us from both the left and from islam.

And that quite to the contrary, the current Constitution is facilitating the putsch of those who seek to dismantle and destroy America and its way of life. That being Western civilization itself.

The only solution to that, is to, well, RE-constitute the old document. To re-write it to correct the errors and omissions that the Founders could not have foreseen in their time. To address its failures with language that is incontrovertible and can be understood by anyone reading in a modern context.

Of course, I realize I'm the only member of the forum who would even suggest this.
But that's my opinion and I'm not changing it.

If you wish, just keep repeating the mantra "the Consititution is fine if only we would keep to it" ... right up to the moment the commies (or the muzzles) come to take you away...

[Cyber Liberty]

The lies and deflections start already.

So, instead of organizing and contributing to getting the Constitution amended to change the problem, you’re just going to slink into your rabbit hole and blame everyone else for being so much less intelligent than you. 

The one thing you will not do is face adverse facts fair and square and deal with them.

What a waste.

Do you understand what you're rooting for?

[Kamaji]

First of all tone it down.  I don't know who you think you are, but you know nothing about me, nor what I do. Secondly, this isn't about amending the Constitution. If that is what you think is needed, then perhaps you should heed your own advice and organize to amend the Constitution. Obviously you are fine with birthright citizenship and yes, you are entitled to your opinion.

Whether I’m fine with birthright citizenship or not is not the question.  The question. Is whether we apply the Constitution as written, or we twist it into pretzels to satisfy our policy desires. 

The Constitution very clearly instantiates birthright citizenship, which makes a lot of sense given when the amendment was drafted and the fact that the country was desperate for more population, for more immigrants, to fill up a mostly empty continent.  The homestead act was first passed in 1862, which basically gave away a huge chunk of land to anyone who showed up,  claimed it, and domesticated it. 

The only things they worried about were making sure that ambassadors and other acknowledged agents of foreign sovereigns wouldn’t get citizenship for their children who were born here, and that members of Indian tribes couldn’t flood the new states with children who would also get citizenship automatically.

For the rest, they were fine with the children of whomever came here and stayed long enough for the child to be born getting citizenship for those children.

Those are all historical facts that flesh out the circumstances under which the 14th amendment was adopted.  With the benefit of hindsight we can say that we wish now that they weren’t so desperate to fill up the country, and weren’t so short-sighted, but they were, on both accounts. 

As far as what I know about you: I know you spend a fair amount of time behind your keyboard posting here to whinge about things, and most of your posts about things you do not like have to do with wishing someone else would change whatever you’re complaining about, particularly this issue, all of which leaves precious little time for one to actually get out of the house and set about trying to do something about the things you don’t like.

[bigheadfred]

Mollie
@MZHemingway
·
48m
I attended today's oral argument and while I'm not sure how it will go, it seemed to me the justices engaged seriously with Sauer's arguments. I'd be surprised if they said the 14th Amendment or Kim Wong Ark support today's radical birthright citizenship regime.

[Kamaji]

Do you understand what you're rooting for?

Do you understand what I’m rooting for?

I didn’t think so. 

I’m rooting for the Constitution to be applied as written, for better or for ill, because that is what respecting the rule of law obliges us to do.  I am rooting against falling into the progressive mindset of expecting judges to “interpret” my preferred policy choices into the law by twisting the words to say things they do not. 

It is, with the benefit of hindsight, unfortunate that the Americans who passed and ratified the 14th Amendment put birthright citizenship into the Constitution, but that is what they did. 

The solution is to amend the Constitution to remove it, not to do violence to the rule of law by twisting the words of the Constitution to say what they do not say. 

[Kamaji]

Mollie
@MZHemingway
·
48m
I attended today's oral argument and while I'm not sure how it will go, it seemed to me the justices engaged seriously with Sauer's arguments. I'd be surprised if they said the 14th Amendment or Kim Wong Ark support today's radical birthright citizenship regime.

They extended him the courtesy of not laughing in his face, which is how conscientious judges are supposed to act.

[Cyber Liberty]

Do you understand what I’m rooting for?

I didn’t think so. 

I’m rooting for the Constitution to be applied as written, for better or for ill, because that is what respecting the rule of law obliges us to do.  I am rooting against falling into the progressive mindset of expecting judges to “interpret” my preferred policy choices into the law by twisting the words to say things they do not. 

It is, with the benefit of hindsight, unfortunate that the Americans who passed and ratified the 14th Amendment put birthright citizenship into the Constitution, but that is what they did. 

The solution is to amend the Constitution to remove it, not to do violence to the rule of law by twisting the words of the Constitution to say what they do not say.

Now I understand. You are rooting for the USA to fail.

[Kamaji]

Now I understand. You are rooting for the USA to fail.

Like I said, you don’t understand what I’m rooting for.

Worse yet, you don’t want to understand.

When the going gets hard, you become a progressive, like so many others, wanting to get your policy preferences enshrined as law without having to do the hard work of convincing your fellow Americans to go along with you. 

Fidelity to the rule of law is not demonstrated by the easy cases, but by the hard cases, where one has to accept the law as written despite the fact that one hates the results.

You have no real fidelity to the rule of law.  That’s a shame.

[mystery-ak]

Symone Sanders: If a Democrat President Showed Up at SCOTUS, They Would Be Impeached

Wednesday on MS NOW’s “Katy Tur Reports,” network host Symone Sanders said if a Democratic president had attended oral arguments before the Supreme Court, they would be “impeached.”

Tur asked, “Symone, can you imagine the reaction to a Democratic president showing up at the Supreme Court?”

Sanders said, “You know, Katy, they would have just impeached that president already, impeached and removed, but that is a different Congress. I think that’s a different political climate and that’s a different time. The president going to the Supreme Court today is going to be read as just — and talked about, unfortunately — as just another one of his stunts. But to be very clear, this is a president that thinks he is above all reproach. This is a president that thought it was smart politically and a political advantage to him to go to the Supreme Court to stare the justices down in hopes that they would take that into consideration, one could argue, and rule in his favor.”

She added, “But here, if we could just step back. I think that everybody is absolutely correct with the president is doing is trying to appeal to a very specific part of his base. But to be very clear, what has happened inside the current Republican Party apparatus is that things that used to be relegated to the fringe, this idea that America is, quote unquote, uniquely for Americans, which translates to America, is for foundational Americans, white people in this country. That is white supremacist ideology.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2026/04/01/symone-sanders-if-a-democrat-president-showed-up-at-scotus-they-would-be-impeached/

[berdie]

Symone Sanders: If a Democrat President Showed Up at SCOTUS, They Would Be Impeached

Wednesday on MS NOW’s “Katy Tur Reports,” network host Symone Sanders said if a Democratic president had attended oral arguments before the Supreme Court, they would be “impeached.”

Tur asked, “Symone, can you imagine the reaction to a Democratic president showing up at the Supreme Court?”

Sanders said, “You know, Katy, they would have just impeached that president already, impeached and removed, but that is a different Congress. I think that’s a different political climate and that’s a different time. The president going to the Supreme Court today is going to be read as just — and talked about, unfortunately — as just another one of his stunts. But to be very clear, this is a president that thinks he is above all reproach. This is a president that thought it was smart politically and a political advantage to him to go to the Supreme Court to stare the justices down in hopes that they would take that into consideration, one could argue, and rule in his favor.”

She added, “But here, if we could just step back. I think that everybody is absolutely correct with the president is doing is trying to appeal to a very specific part of his base. But to be very clear, what has happened inside the current Republican Party apparatus is that things that used to be relegated to the fringe, this idea that America is, quote unquote, uniquely for Americans, which translates to America, is for foundational Americans, white people in this country. That is white supremacist ideology.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2026/04/01/symone-sanders-if-a-democrat-president-showed-up-at-scotus-they-would-be-impeached/

I guess I just don't get it. Why is this even an issue? He didn't say or do anything...just listened.

[Elderberry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3SntHo03CQ

[libertybele]

Kamaji:
"get off your couch, stop being a keyboard warrior, and organize to change the Constitution."

Not possible, never going to happen.
Not in the USA as it is now (and is becoming).
But you KNOW that.
Yet you posted it, anyway.

I'm on record in this forum for years now, stating that the Constitution (as it's currently written and amended) can no longer protect us from both the left and from islam.

And that quite to the contrary, the current Constitution is facilitating the putsch of those who seek to dismantle and destroy America and its way of life. That being Western civilization itself.

The only solution to that, is to, well, RE-constitute the old document. To re-write it to correct the errors and omissions that the Founders could not have foreseen in their time. To address its failures with language that is incontrovertible and can be understood by anyone reading in a modern context.

Of course, I realize I'm the only member of the forum who would even suggest this.
But that's my opinion and I'm not changing it.

If you wish, just keep repeating the mantra "the Consititution is fine if only we would keep to it" ... right up to the moment the commies (or the muzzles) come to take you away...

Yes, you've been taking about revamping/revising our Constitution --If you are referring to your suggestion of an Article V Convention of States, etc. you've been doing so for awhile.  I completely understand your basis for wanting to do so.  It is unfortunate that it wasn't done when the state legislatures were more conservative.  My concern has been that the liberals now would override any conservative values and revise it in such a way that it would diminish any conservative and Christian backbone of this country.

[Kamaji]

Kamaji:
"get off your couch, stop being a keyboard warrior, and organize to change the Constitution."

Not possible, never going to happen.
Not in the USA as it is now (and is becoming).
But you KNOW that.
Yet you posted it, anyway.

I'm on record in this forum for years now, stating that the Constitution (as it's currently written and amended) can no longer protect us from both the left and from islam.

And that quite to the contrary, the current Constitution is facilitating the putsch of those who seek to dismantle and destroy America and its way of life. That being Western civilization itself.

The only solution to that, is to, well, RE-constitute the old document. To re-write it to correct the errors and omissions that the Founders could not have foreseen in their time. To address its failures with language that is incontrovertible and can be understood by anyone reading in a modern context.

Of course, I realize I'm the only member of the forum who would even suggest this.
But that's my opinion and I'm not changing it.

If you wish, just keep repeating the mantra "the Consititution is fine if only we would keep to it" ... right up to the moment the commies (or the muzzles) come to take you away...

And what are you doing to implement your preferred solution?  Keyboard jockey won’t cut it there, either.

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/2039356124848128313

[Cyber Liberty]

https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/2039356124848128313

I give up.

[Bigun]

I give up.

I'm going to wait three months or so before I throw in the towel.

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/2039502371236057190

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/ryanswalters73/status/2039522156682371219

[Smokin Joe]

Exactly. It includes everyone other than accredited ambassadors, their accredited staff, and Indians who are members of semi-sovereign tribes. 

Pretty clear what it means, and it does not exclude illegal immigrants, who are neither ambassadors of native Americans.

Missed the part about "...foreigners, aliens..."? They, whether here legally or otherwise, are subject to the laws of their respective countries: to the jurisdiction thereof, not the US, except as related to their compliance with our laws.
An alien (legal or illegal) remains subject to the jurisdiction of their country of origin, as would their minor children.

[Kamaji]

Missed the part about "...foreigners, aliens..."? They, whether here legally or otherwise, are subject to the laws of their respective countries: to the jurisdiction thereof, not the US, except as related to their compliance with our laws.
An alien (legal or illegal) remains subject to the jurisdiction of their country of origin, as would their minor children.

They may very well remain subject to the jurisdiction of their country of origin in addition to being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. once they are on U.S. soil.

Once a person sets foot on another country’s soil, that person owes an obligation to that sovereign to follow that sovereigns laws, or face the consequences, with very few exceptions,including accredited ambassadors.  Indians who were tribal members were excluded because (a) they already outnumber Whites in the Weet, and had very good memories of what had been done to them by the Whites, and so the claim was ginned up that they were similar to ambassadors in that they were excluded from the obligation to follow US law unless they left the tribe (good luck with that back in the day).

Having an obligation to follow a sovereigns laws or suffer the consequences means one owes allegiance to that sovereign.   And that is also what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction of that sovereign.

Every person who sets foot on US soil, with the exception of accredited ambassadors and, in time of war, invading soldiers, automatically owes allegiance to the U.S., even if, like US citizens abroad, they also have a continuing allegiance to their home country.  And that arises whether they entered legally or illegally.  Because they owe that allegiance, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and, under the 14th Amendment, their children who are born in the U.S. automatically become U.S. citizens. 

If you don’t like that result, then get off your lazy a$$ and start organizing to change the Constitution. 

[mystery-ak]

https://rumble.com/embed/v75rcha/?pub=4

[IsailedawayfromFR]

They may very well remain subject to the jurisdiction of their country of origin in addition to being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. once they are on U.S. soil.

Once a person sets foot on another country’s soil, that person owes an obligation to that sovereign to follow that sovereigns laws, or face the consequences, with very few exceptions,including accredited ambassadors.  Indians who were tribal members were excluded because (a) they already outnumber Whites in the Weet, and had very good memories of what had been done to them by the Whites, and so the claim was ginned up that they were similar to ambassadors in that they were excluded from the obligation to follow US law unless they left the tribe (good luck with that back in the day).

Having an obligation to follow a sovereigns laws or suffer the consequences means one owes allegiance to that sovereign.   And that is also what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction of that sovereign.

Every person who sets foot on US soil, with the exception of accredited ambassadors and, in time of war, invading soldiers, automatically owes allegiance to the U.S., even if, like US citizens abroad, they also have a continuing allegiance to their home country.  And that arises whether they entered legally or illegally.  Because they owe that allegiance, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and, under the 14th Amendment, their children who are born in the U.S. automatically become U.S. citizens. 

If you don’t like that result, then get off your lazy a$$ and start organizing to change the Constitution.

Really dumb to say that the moment they set foot on that soil, since at that moment they broke the laws of that country.

On your logic, the Iranians who stormed our embassy in 1979 immediately became subservient to the US.

Do you really believe the idiocy you are spewing or are you just ginning up arguments to get responses?

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/2039687476021809318

[Bigun]

I do, actually, and it doesn’t mean what you so desperately want it to mean.

https://grammarist.com/punctuation/commas-in-a-list/

"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."

During the same session in which Congress approved the 14th Amendment, it had already enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, providing that, for a U.S.-born baby to be a citizen, the baby must “not [be] subject to any foreign power.” A child, although born in this country, who, after birth, returns with foreign citizen parents to, and lives in, the foreign country of which the child remains a citizen, is subject to that foreign power. Thus, that statute mandated that such U.S.-born children be denied U.S. citizenship. The record makes clear that, in considering the 14th Amendment, Congress did not repudiate the statute it had just enacted. Not even a single member introduced a bill to rescind that legislation. The absence of any attempts to walk back the statute suggests that Congress remained satisfied with that law, and that the same-session approval of the 14th Amendment did not signal any change of view.

[Kamaji]

Really dumb to say that the moment they set foot on that soil, since at that moment they broke the laws of that country.

On your logic, the Iranians who stormed our embassy in 1979 immediately became subservient to the US.

Do you really believe the idiocy you are spewing or are you just ginning up arguments to get responses?

Thank you for demonstrating the old canard about leading a horse to water.

Given your proclivity to have judges rewrite the Constitution to mirror your subjective policy preferences, some place like DU or Bluesky would be a more relevant discussion venue for you.

Then again, I suppose you really could be as stupid as your comment makes you appear.   

[Kamaji]

https://grammarist.com/punctuation/commas-in-a-list/

During the same session in which Congress approved the 14th Amendment, it had already enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, providing that, for a U.S.-born baby to be a citizen, the baby must “not [be] subject to any foreign power.” A child, although born in this country, who, after birth, returns with foreign citizen parents to, and lives in, the foreign country of which the child remains a citizen, is subject to that foreign power. Thus, that statute mandated that such U.S.-born children be denied U.S. citizenship. The record makes clear that, in considering the 14th Amendment, Congress did not repudiate the statute it had just enacted. Not even a single member introduced a bill to rescind that legislation. The absence of any attempts to walk back the statute suggests that Congress remained satisfied with that law, and that the same-session approval of the 14th Amendment did not signal any change of view.

The Constitution doesn’t say what you so desperately want it to say. 

It very clearly gives birthright citizenship to anyone who was born on US soil, other than the children of accredited ambassadors and members of Indian tribes.

Very clearly. 


I have to give kudos to the Justices yesterday for being patient enough to give the governments lawyer the time to speak without laughing him out of the courtroom. 

As far as your vomitus about commas: that only applies when a written statute is being analyzed. It doesn’t apply to the analysis of a spoken statement that was written down by someone else and subsequently published in a non-statutory format.  It’s very nice that the author of the report in the. Congressional Globe threw a comma in there, but that doesn’t affect the analysis of that statement.  It cannot. 

It’s astounding how desperate you are to run away from the obvious meaning of what is comparatively straightforward English language legalese. 

 It you apparently would rather sit behind your keyboard spewing invective and inventing conspiracies - the one coming from this result should be epic - rather than actually getting g out there w s trying to persuade your fellow Americans to amend the Constitution to fix what is, in hindsight, a big mistake.

Get off your lazy a$$ and do something about it.  Organize, persuade, anything.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Another key word ... "returns" ... what if they never return?

The 14th Amendment was more directed towards preventing states from denying rights to former slaves rather than defining requirements for US Citizenship.

The wording of the Civvil Rights Act of 1866 should have been included in the 14th Amendment.