The Great One Mark Levin went through Supreme Court Justice John Robert’s opinion today on birthright citizenship and torched it, pointing out why his justification is absurd and “grievous in every respect.”
I’ve aggregated his tweets from X, which are all blockquoted below. It’s a great read, but he makes it simple at the end if you don’t have a few minutes to read it all.
Here ya go:
Chief Justice Roberts begins his opinion arguing that the states and the framers relied on English common law in writing the 14th amendment. But that isn’t the whole story. They used it as a guide but rejected it when they felt it conflicted with our constitutional system. It certainly is not a sound argument to use it as the basis for the 14th amendment or the Civil Rights Act that preceded it. They were addressing, specifically, the problem of some formerly Confederate states, after the Civil War, to recognized freed black slaves and their children as citizens with the full and equal rights enjoyed by all other citizens.
I am a huge fan of Thomas Paine, but his powers of persuasion during the Revolutionary War had little to nothing to do with the formulation of the 14th amendment. Roberts creates a hodgepodge of references to make what is basically an argument looking for founding principles. He must for the truth is this case was so straightforward and the facts and history so clear, the majority had to do what lawyers do when the facts and the history are against them — create contrivances.
This part of Roberts’s opinion is especially absurd. The abdominal Dred Scott decision had nothing to do with immigration, let alone illegal immigration. It held that freed Blacks and Black slaves were not citizens and Congress could not ban slavery in federal territories (among other things), thereby upending the Missouri Compromise. This would lead, in great part, to the Civil War, which also had nothing to do with immigration, let along illegal immigration.
As I continue reading the Roberts opinion — that is, the Court’s decision — it does a grave injustice to the purpose of all constitutional, legal, political, and ultimately, military conflict aimed at dealing with and then ending the enslavement of black people. Instead, it attempts to create more generalized policy and legal arguments that are simply deceiving. The terrible wrong was the enslavement of Black people, not some immigration policy. That’s what was at issue.
The only purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was to use the power of the federal government to confer on all former Black slaves and their progeny the same rights that applied to all other citizens because of continuing resistance in former Confederate states. That’s why it was called a civil rights act, not an immigration act. When President Andrew Johnson vetoed it, it was clear to the Republicans that they needed to enshrine it into the Constitution. Thus, was born the 14th amendment.
As he continues moving through his decision, Roberts again appeals to English common law, among other things, as the basis for the 14th amendment. But notice what’s missing. Where are all the stirring speeches by members of Congress and the state ratifiers supporting Roberts’s proposition? Keep something in mind: two-thirds of both Houses of Congress must propose amendments to the states. In turn, three-fourths must ratify amendments. That means despite all the debates and speeches that occurred, Roberts and the proponents could not find support for their position. The speeches and declarations don’t exist. The focus was the terrible problems that arose in the South after the Civil War, the rise of the KKK, the terrible violence and lynchings against Blacks, and the overall difficulty with Reconstruction. Congress and the states were not thinking about birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. They weren’t glued to the ideas of English Common Law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were about creating the constitutional protections for freed Black slaves throughout the nation, not citizens of other countries who hadn’t even arrived yet on our shores — legally or illegally. The extent to which Roberts and the Majority have to rewrite our history to reach their decision is ugly business.
We come back to the word “jurisdiction,” where Roberts makes the same argument as those who’ve always supported birthright citizenship make — that is, jurisdiction means physical jurisdiction. If a pregnant mother is in our country illegally and has her baby in our country, the baby is granted immediate citizenship according to this argument. As a practical matter, does that make sense? So, a foreigner can unilaterally confer jurisdiction on their soon-to-be born baby by coming into the United States illegally? Think about that as a matter of simple logic. Does that make sense? Moreover, the country from where the parent comes continues to treat that baby as a citizen of their country. And why are there exceptions for babies born of diplomats? Does the 14th amendment, if interpreted as Roberts insist, create exceptions of any kind?
The language states: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. Notice, the authors did not leave it at “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which would have been enough if the purpose was to confer citizenship to a baby born in the United States. So, why did they add superfluous language? Because the rest of the sentence is KEY to what they intended and did. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means something more. It means subject to the political allegiance to our country. What does that mean? A fundamental duty of loyalty to our country (patriotism), part of the civil society, a legal bond and societal ties, in exchange for which you receive the legal rights and protections afforded all citizens.
The facts in the 1898 Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark simply have nothing to do with the babies of illegal aliens. That case involved the birth of a baby from lawful, permanent residents, but the language was so broad Roberts used it, as do others in the birthright legal world, to apply to babies born of illegal aliens.
You can see from my posts, and please feel free to check all of them, that Roberts and the Court Majority were looking for an outcome, and dressing it up as a constitutional decision. In doing so, they have taken judicial activism to new heights. The decision will have enormously detrimental cultural, societal, legal, economic, and national security consequences. Now we are told that we must amend the Constitution if we wish to change what a rogue Chief Justice and Court Majority did in abusing the Constitution, knowing full well that two-thirds of Congress will never vote to send any amendment to the states that alters what half of Congress had intentionally done, and that there are not enough states even with a Convention of States to ratify an amendment (when/if we get to the magic number of 34 states supporting a convention in time to stop the ongoing damage).
The nature of this format requires me to write in “posts,” so I am also trying to be concise and use plain English. I’ve discussed all of this long before Roberts’s absurd opinion, which you can find elsewhere.
Let’s make it simple: Roberts and his Majority twisted the history of the 14th amendment and just constitutionalized birthright citizenship knowing full well that our nation, like Europe, is facing a grave threat from within as a result, in part, of the intentional refusal of our government, when the Democrats are in power, to enforce immigration laws and, oppositely, facilitating the importation of aliens from all over the world without proper vetting. Moreover, these justices know how China is using birthright citizenship, as are a number of Islamist regimes, where enemy governments are using our system to infiltrate our country to destroy it from within. This decision is grievous in every respect.
You will hear a lot more about this on Mark Levin’s radio show tonight, so tune in.