In his first week in office, President Trump has issued executive orders and taken other actions with significant implications for the legal community.
The last several days have clarified why I’m happy to be an old guy – I won’t be around to see the destruction of the country that has been so good to me.
I’m a “birthright” citizen. My parents emigrated from Canada just before WWII, and I was born before they became naturalized citizens. I was fortunate to contribute to and benefit from what historians will likely view as the apogee of innovation in the United States.
We did the impossible, putting a man on the moon in less than ten years, start to finish. We made incredible advances in medicine, some of which are why I’m alive today. I have more computing power in my Apple watch than was present on the first mainframe I programmed, and we made the Dick Tracy wrist radio a reality. Even when I was in college, no one envisioned the reach of the Internet, for better or worse.
What I fail to understand is why your fellow lawyers are so eager to destroy the country that gave them the opportunity to succeed…and to speak freely.
This isn’t about Trump. He’s the shill, the carny barker. He’s too stupid to realize how he’s being used. The real culprits are behind the scenes.
Your fellow lawyers polished and promoted the careers of the Supreme Court justices who abandoned stare decisis, the foundation principle of common law, and blithely extended the legal convenience that “corporations are people” to enable the wealthy to purchase control of our government.
Your fellow lawyers are the authors of every foolish executive order Trump has issued, some of which may have disastrous consequences for our country.
Don’t be surprised when the puppet masters order Trump to ignore the law. And don’t be surprised when Trump anoints the Proud Boys with police powers; they’ll happily wear jackboots.
I’m in the same boat as you: the child of immigrants who didn’t have green cards and were not yet naturalized at the time of my birth. So I would also not be a citizen under this order.
Basic literacy contradicts your statement that offspring of persons "not yet naturalized at the time of my birth" would be denied political power under the Executive Order. Why not click the link for the EO that David provided and read the two specified categories of born persons who are not entitled to political power as a birthright. Were your parents illegal aliens, or "tourists" or on "student visa" when they were "not yet naturalized at the time of my birth"???
Does it seem to you that the purported analysis of the Trump administration regarding who can or cannot be a citizen (and specifically invoking "jurisdiction") is remarkably reminiscent of the purported analysis of jurisdiction and citizenship in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)? It sure seems so to me.
This issue in Dred Scott was "whether the descendants of" people who entered the U.S. in a particular manner "are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States." Id. at 403. If they are not citizens (because of the particular manner in which one or both parents entered the U.S.), then they cannot "show" that they are "within the jurisdiction of [any federal] court" in a case that, by definition, must be between "citizens of different States." Id. at 402.
Promptly thereafter (promptly after the nation finished fighting the Civil War precipitated, in part, by the conduct of SCOTUS justices in Dred Scott), our Constitution was amended specifically to emphatically dispose of the issues regarding jurisdiction raised in Dred Scott. The Fourteenth Amendment was a brutal slap in the face and smackdown by Congress and the People of the SCOTUS justices responsible for the dreadful so-called judgment and opinions in Dred Scott:
"All persons born [ ] in the United States" are (as a result of such birth) "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." As a result, "No State" has any power to "make or enforce any law" that "abridge[s any] privileges or immunities of [such] citizens of the United States; nor" does "any State" have any power to "deny to any person [regardless of citizenship, color, creed or sex] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Citizenship", and political power within a "Democracy" invented by Greeks is not a "human right" of anyone who voluntarily invades the territory (of a Kingdom or of a Democracy). Else, any people established as freemen in a place could be lawfully enslaved/ruled by the invaders. Dred Scot decision cited Roman precedents and was entirely consistent with the Greek/Roman concept that CITIZENSHIP was a political privilege of great VALUE to be withheld as deemed necessary by the existing Citizens (for their mutual survival and freedom). Not even the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment purported to grant full political power to criminally-deviant black freedmen. Each of these three civil war amendments contains explicit exceptions for "crime", to prevent criminals from taking power control over the free population/citizens. Illegal aliens are a species of criminals and, at common law were OUTLAWS that could be lawfully slain upon detection by any bystander. No Free People before U.S. liberal maniacs have ever experimented with, advocated for, (nor survived) "birthright citizenship" to criminals/invaders.
Your argument that the First Section of the Fourteenth Amendment makes ["All persons born [ ] in the United States" are (as a result of such birth) "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"] creates a cause-and-effect rule that is specifically contradicted by the language of that provision itself (rendering the words "born subject to the jurisdiction thereof" superfluous and null, violating the first principle of statutory construction). As such, no one should take anything else that you have stated as credible on face value.
P.S. "equal protection of the laws" is vested in all "persons" regardless of citizenship, and (according to the text of the fourteenth and fifteenth), does not include political rights.
Your view is founded, in part, on your contention that "Illegal aliens" (at some unspecified point in our history) purportedly "could be lawfully slain upon detection by any bystander." Where did you get that?
Your view is founded, in part, on your contention that "No Free People before U.S. liberal maniacs have ever experimented with, advocated for, (nor survived) 'birthright citizenship' to criminals/invaders." Where exactly do you think the people who became American citizens in the 1770's came from? How exactly do you think they and their children became American citizens?
Our nation was founded by many people who were criminals--and they knew it. Do you have any idea why our Declaration of Independence ends with the words "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor"? Because those men knew they were committing treason (for which they could be hung and their property confiscated), and they were encouraging all Americans to join them. America wouldn't exist at all without a huge proportion of citizens who were considered criminals. Put another way, a man in the American colonies between 1776 and 1783 almost could not have been a true blue American without having been a criminal.
American: Criminals = Founders? Rebels are typically deemed "criminals" if the ruler/sovereign is not ousted. The status of "criminal" attached to "rebels" is only conditional, because if the rebellion is successful, the "rebels" thereupon obtain the Sovereign Power to Pardon/Absolve themselves of the taint. Such was the cases in the American Revolution, which was successful. Further, in the Treaty of Paris, the English Crown withdrew any claim of jurisdiction to deem the "citizens of the United States" as being "criminals", even should these citizens venture into Canada or other continuing domains of the Crown. Your point, insofar as the discussion is about "birthright citizenship" is nonsensical. The ruling group (current citizens of the United States) "jointly" exercise "sovereignty" to declare Law/Crime (Chisholm v. Georgia) , and American citizens HAVE DONE SO in more than two centuries of laws defining lawful versus unlawful entries into the US. The mere birth of the child of an illegal alien (a species of criminal) does not overthow the sovereignty of the US Citizens the way that the American Revolution overthew the English Crown (and the Native Indians).
The major point of the Dred Scott decision was that the militant White Supremacists who used concerted militant white supremacist violence to Seize Power and Sovereignty from the English Crown (and from the Native Indians) and who concertedly Ordained the US Constitution to preserve the hard fought "liberty" of the white supremacists "progeny" (as against the Indians and as against the Islamic State Navy Barbary "Pirates") did not go to all that trouble and expense for the benefit of African people who were deemed "slaves" by the Law of Africa. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/amistad
This is a false Chicken and The Egg Paradox. "Where exactly do you think the people who became American citizens in the 1770's came from? How exactly do you think they and their children became American citizens?" Treaties and writings preceding the US Constitution refer to "citizens of the United States". The US Constitution, in its requirements for Congress and President, requires born-citizen status: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;" Presidents George Washington, Adams, Jefferson were obviously "born" prior to the US Constitution. So, US citizenship was established prior to the US Constitution by the Founding White Supremacists who used concerted militant white supremacist violence to Seize Power and Sovereignty from the English Crown (and from the Native Indians). See discussion in Chisholm v. Georgia https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/2us419 The Founding White Supremacists themselves defined and conferred the status of "American" born "citizen" upon each other, as an exercise of White Supremacist Military Power and Jurisdiction, as likewise did the Greeks and the Romans before them. Accord, Dred Scott decision.
My "contention that "Illegal aliens" (at some unspecified point in our history) purportedly "could be lawfully slain upon detection by any bystander." is confirmed in the text of a US Supreme Court Decision that I once read that specifically confirmed such to have been the "common law" rule and the Law of Nations. This ancient rule is modified by positive law e.g., Treaties and by US Constitutional Limitations (Due Process etc), and state regulations, but the underlying disability and outlaw status remains at the core of the common law concept of born subject/citizen status.
It seems that Judge Ho and I are on the same side of this issue, according to the article, "Is Trump’s Plan to End Birthright Citizenship ‘Dred Scott II’?"
Quote: "“From our experience with Dred Scott,” Mr. Dellinger added, “we had learned that our country should never again trust to judges or politicians the power to deprive from a class born on our soil the right of citizenship.”
So, every child of a foreign diplomat or chinese tourist (e.g., visiting the United Nations or the Grand Canyon) can be DRAFTED into the US Army upon being raised in a foreign land (by his foreign parents) at the age of 18 (because "born... subject to the jurisdiction"????)
"Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”[2]"
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-3 The legal status of "foreign" and subject to removal is controlled by the King/President. As such, the US President Trump has the lawful power to grant immunity-from-US-citizenship(and US Military Draft) to the offspring born in the US to foreigners who are themselves subject to removal from the US by the President.
The NY Times article you cite contains this ridiculous false assertion: "The idea that children born in the United States automatically become citizens of the United States has deep roots in the common law. But it was not adopted in the constitutional text until 1868," The "common law" existed for the benefit of "freemen" (Magna Carta of 1215) and operated within the scope of a MONARCHY subject to some extent to a Parliament. There were NO CITIZENS at the time of English Common Law rule in America. The lawful inhabitants were called "subjects" all the way up to the US Declaration of Independence. The Treaty that ended the Revolutionary War refers to British "subjects" and American "citizens". https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/treaty-of-paris Thus, it is legally impossible that the concept of "birthright citizenship" was regulated by the English "common law".
Quote: [In its most monumentally erroneous decision [Dred Scot], the Supreme Court created a monstrous exception to the common law rule that birth on American soil to a free person was sufficient for American citizenship,” he said.] This is complete nonsense. The concept of "American citizenship" was invented by colonial white people around the time of the Revolutionary War, and was informed by the common law rule that persons born are "born subjects" of the Crown. But, this "born subjects" rule did not necessarily apply to the offspring of foreign diplomats or of "merchants" temporarily permitted to enter. Would a foreign diplomat or merchant whose child was born in US Hospital want his child later to be DRAFTED into service in the Military of the Crown (or Military of the modern United States)?
Quote: [Madison in 1800 and a unanimous SCOTUS in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) emphasized the obvious and profound [difference between] a British subject, not an American citizen:
Madison [emphasized that our original] Constitution created a form of government under which ‘The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty.’ The structure of the government [prescribed by our Constitution] dispersed power in reflection of the people’s distrust of concentrated power, and of power itself at all levels. This form of government was ‘altogether different’ from the British form, under which the Crown [or Parliament] was sovereign and the people were [mere] subjects. In On Liberty, Mill wrote about the liberty of British subjects. It should be clear to anyone who understands our Constitution that a vast difference separate American citizens from British subjects. This vast difference is American sovereignty ...]
Quote [Those amendments highlighted that speech, including suffrage (the right and power to vote regarding our representatives, our public servants), was the primary power of political sovereignty.]
So Jack, why do you seem to feel compelled to vest American "sovereignty" into the offspring of foreign "Tourists" and foreign "criminals" who happened to be present in the United States, and who may have afterwards raised their foreign baby entirely outside the United States, and educated in the way and duty of Jihad and Caliphate?
The fact that concepts relevant to citizenship have "deep roots in the common law" means more than you seem to realize. Even you acknowledged (in a different comment) that the concept of "citizens" was not invented in the U.S. or in the 1770's. In your other comment, you invoked Greek and Roman societies from thousands of years ago. In ancient Athens (about 2,500 years ago), a citizen was a free man of Athens.
I do not see where you are making any relevant point whatsoever, nor contradiction anything that I stated. Dred Scot cited Roman Law (of Slavery versus Citizenship) and is entirely consistent with Roman/Greek concepts of birthright citizenship being limited to the offspring of citizens. Greeks had citizens and slaves living in same house, and the mere fact of being born in Greece/Athens did not make that person a "citizen" of Athens/Greece. Would the Greek concept of Democracy have survived even 100 years if every slave-baby born in Greece was deemed a "citizen" with voting power?
Theoretically, Dred Scott itself permitted States to vest black freedmen or black slaves as "citizens of the State". (The 14th ordains that states cannot DENY state citizenship to migrated US Citizens) That power to grant Non-US State-Citizen and voting/ruling status remains vested in the States. So, theoretically, the state ruled by liberal maniacs could declare that The Political Power (citizenship/voting officership) in State X shall be vested in All Pious Islamist Muslims Born In Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt who shall manifest a Desire and Duty to Jihad and Rule over the Dhimmis/Kafir/Saqaliba/Abeed in state X as such Desire shall be conclusively evidenced by their migration into State X in defiance of the Kafir US Statutes.
Although Dred Scot contains broad statements as to the scope of disability to become a US Citizen, it is a determination limited by the FACTs in the case to the result of the status of "slave". "The question with which we are now dealing is, whether a person of the African race can be a citizen of the United States, and become thereby entitled to a special privilege, by virtue of his title to that character, and which, under the Constitution, no one but a citizen can claim." ;"n making oct his case, states that he is of African descent, was born a slave, and claims that he and his family became entitled to freed in by being taken by their owner to reside in a territory where slavery is prohibited by act of Congress--and that, in addition to this claim, he himself became entitled to freedom being taken to Rock Island, in the State of Illinois--and being free when he was brought back to Missouri, he was by the laws of that State a citizen." "e said plaintiff, Dred Scott, is not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, because he is a negro of African descent; his ancestors were of pure African blood, and were brought into this country and sold as negro slaves". The ratio decidendi in Dred Scott does not apply to blacks who were not brought into the US as "slaves" https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/amistad Dred Scot itself recites the factual limitations on its ruling:" "It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of ... the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves."
The ratio decidendi in Dred Scott does not apply to blacks who were not brought into the US as "slaves" https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/amistad Dred Scot itself recites the factual limitations on its ruling:" "It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of ... the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves."
Not even close to true. Article VI expressly precluded any "religious test" and expressly required all public servants to "support this Constitution" to preclude the scenario you suggested.
No. Citizenship is an OFFICE that vests POLITICAL POWER (and the right to possess firearms, per Dred Scott) into the hands of such citizen/officer. Liberal Maniacs can enact a state law that effectively vests the ruling status of citizen (voting officer) upon every "foreign born islamist who comes into this state, and their offspring born here (or born anywhere)" as a class. This exact and entire point of "birthright US citizenship" is to vest political power in the offspring of Pious Islamists who shall come into the US illegally to give birth to baby islamists (even if the baby islamist is then removed from the US and raised and educated in a Islamist Madrassa in Afghanistan and then upon reaching gun-carrying age the young islamist has a "constitutional right as a US Citizen" to ENTER the United States and to make or buy firearms (and vote) in the glory and service of Allah. There is no "support this Constitution" limitation nor a "religious test" limitation upon the concept of "Birthright Citizenship". The Constitution is a vestige of the White Supremacy that ordained it (the Preamble explicitly promises to protect the "liberty" of the white "progeny" as against "pirates" (AKA Barbary Pirates of the Islamic State Navy) and the US Constitution will only exist during the age of vestigial White Supremacy. Pious Islamist US Citizens, with 4 wives and many babies, and upon obtaining majority population, can after all can dissolve the US Constitution and replace it with an Islamic Caliphate if they are so inclined.
Roger, I like a lot of what you wrote, but there is one crucial exception: "stare decisis" may be as you wrote "the foundation principle of common law." But old opinions by judges manifestly are not "the foundation principle" of our Constitution. Our Constitution was written by (mostly) lawyers to remedy the egregious abuses of power by judges and the people they supported (kings and nobles). Stare decisis must be one of the most absurd doctrines that judges abuse to justify violating our Constitution.
When the people amend our Constitution, the most recent amendment governs. When legislators create law, the most recent law governs. That's common sense. But for some bizarre reason, we pretend that the first lawyers and judge(s) to write about a legal issue should influence (or even control) instead of the more recent--and better--analysis of later lawyers and judges. How does that make sense? Stare decisis is responsible for extreme and extremely egregious abuses of power and people. Stare decisis perpetuates the vestiges of vicious abuses of power (including slavery) to this very day.
Stare decisis is the primary reason that judicial opinions are pathetically weakly reasoned. Judicial judgments that are extremely strongly supported by our Constitution (e.g., Roe and Casey) were thrown out by SCOTUS justices because Roe and Casey were weakly supported by lawyers and judges. But the reasoning of the majority in Dobbs was as pathetically weak as that of the majority in Roe. Dobbs may be supported by stare decisis, but it clearly violated our Constitution in multiple obvious respects.
Can't entirely disagree, but stare decisis had the very real value of making the law predictable.
Alito's opinion in Dobbs is simply dishonest. Using the lack of historical documentation from a period when women were second-class citizens to return them to second-class citizenship is absurd. Worse, Alito used as one justification the self-published writings of an obscure author who openly expressed hatred for women. Alito ignored the far better known, 300 years later, Jonathon Swift essay, "A Modest Proposal," whose very premise would have been senseless if abortion weren't a common procedure.
Did stare decisis serve the purpose of making the law predictable? Consider this obvious example. The SCOTUS majority in Dobbs literally and blatantly lied about the Ninth Amendment, and they pretended that their lie was supported by a prior decision. The majority in Dobbs (twice) knowingly misrepresented that the Ninth Amendment stated a mere "reservation of rights to the people," and (adding insult to injury) they even cited Roe as purported precedent for that falsehood.
After the Dobbs majority blatantly lied about the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, they blatantly violated it. They focused myopically on the obviously irrelevant fact that “[t]he Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion," and they pretended (misrepresented) that "therefore those who claim that [our Constitution] protects [any] right [at issue] must show that the right is somehow implicit in the constitutional text.”
The misrepresentation of law and violation of law by the Dobbs majority was clearly barred by the plain text and plain meaning the People in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. In a single sentence, the People used the Ninth Amendment to command that “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution" of any "rights, shall not be construed to deny or [even] disparage others retained by the people.”
The Ninth Amendment clearly was not merely a "reservation of rights." It expressly and emphatically commanded judges not to do exactly what the Dobbs majority did, i.e., not construe our Constitution "to deny or [even] disparage" any right "retained by the people" on the grounds that a right was not expressly included in any "enumeration in the Constitution." That command was clearly directed especially at judges whose duty is to construe the law (say what the law is).
The Dobbs majority used the foregoing lie about the law and violation of our Constitution to pretend to justify shifting the crucial burden of proof--from the government (when it infringed on rights) onto citizens (asserting rights). Their conduct also was contrary to the plain text and plain purpose of the Tenth Amendment. SCOTUS has only limited powers, and it must prove that it was given the power to do what it did.
Article VI requires every public servant to support our Constitution. The SCOTUS majority in Dobbs (and the state legislators they empowered) did exactly the opposite. They viciously and maliciously undermined our Constitution to support their own religious views.
"There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us, sacrificing the poor innocent babes, I doubt, more to avoid the expence than the shame,"
"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasee, or a ragoust."
So, the "modest proposal" is to replace "abortion" with live birth followed by one year of baby care and fattening followed by slaughter and food salvage. I believe that the Chinese actually practiced this to some extent. It was also practiced in Eastern Ukraine during Holodomor. See "Holodomor" on Youtube and see movie named "Mr. Smith". It would be lawfully practicable in New York today with the modification that the human baby must be slaughtered before or while being "born".
New York defines a live birth as “the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception" Note "born" is "complete expulsion" Thus, stabbing the full term healthy human baby in the eye and brain while it is being born (with one toe still inside its mother) is a legal abortion in New York. Under the NY statute, all members of the public have the privilege to "abort" the "unborn" baby of anyone else that they deem unfit or unsuited, without criminal penalty. The "unborn" have no rights or protections under the Criminal Statutes of New York.
Too sadly it's too true: "Alito's opinion" (the opinion of the majority of SCOTUS justices) "in Dobbs is simply dishonest." But how did we get to the point at which a majority of SCOTUS justices would even believe they could successfully misrepresent the meaning of our Constitution? Stare decisis is a big part of the answer (i.e., a big part of the problem).
John Stuart Mill and Abraham Lincoln were contemporaries and impressively insightful, and each addressed the problem posed by the judicial custom of stare decisis in similar but different ways.
In 1859, Mill published "On Liberty," in which he emphasized the dangers of a "tyranny of the majority" and of the "deep slumber of decided opinion." Clearly, stare decisis imposes both dangers on us. The opinions and judgments of the SCOTUS majorities in Dobbs (2022) and Dred Scott (in 1857) were good examples of the former. Roe was a good example of the latter. Dobbs happened because the justices responsible for Roe failed to present properly what they had learned about the most important principle in our Constitution.
In his first inaugural address in March 1861, President Lincoln emphasized that "if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of [the mere majority of judges on] the Supreme Court," then "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers" inasmuch as they have "practically resigned their government into the hands of" a handful of judges.
A crucial principle that SCOTUS justices (unanimously in 1964 in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan quoting James Madison in 1800) emphasized underlies SCOTUS's judgment in Roe and Casey and the judgments of President Lincoln and Mill: our "Constitution created a form of government under which ‘The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty.’"
The sovereignty of the people over their own minds and bodies, as well as over their public servants (all public officials) is the primary principle underlying our Constitution (and the judgment in Roe) and precluding the so-called judgment of the SCOTUS majority in decisions such as Dobbs.
Mill (and Lincoln) understood and presented our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution far better than most SCOTUS justices. Note the words "absolutely," "absolute," "independence" and "sovereign" in On Liberty:
Only "one very simple principle [must] govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control . . . . The only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable [answerable] to society is that which concerns [affects] others. [Regarding any action of a person] which merely concerns [affects] himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
Yet, too many judges too often presume or pretend otherwise. Justice Scalia (speaking for SCOTUS) had something to say about the illegality of such judicial custom and practice despite (and because of) its prevalence:
“communis error facit jus may be a sadly accurate description of reality," but "it is not the normative basis of [anything properly considered to be] jurisprudence. Courts may not create their own limitations on [the law, including our Constitution] no matter how alluring the policy arguments for doing so, and no matter how widely the blame may be spread” (among any quantity or putative quality of courts or judges). Brogan v. U.S., 522 U.S. 398, 400 (1998).
What exactly is your objection to the Dred Scott (1857) Decision? Quote: "Dred Scott (in 1857) were good examples of the [the dangers of a "tyranny of the majority" and of the "deep slumber of decided opinion." ]. If Dred Scott has been decided contrarywise, then any US State could mass-produce tens of millions of slaves-to-citizens on a massive scale and weaponize them. Georgia and the Southern states could have vanquished the Northern states as follows: The Southern states could farm-raise tens of millions of black slaves, constantly undernourishing them, feeding them human flesh and training them to be happy as cannibals, and educating them to go North and eat evil fat "northern" white human flesh (as video shows Africans in Africa still have a tendency to do spontaneously upon murdering someone. like Mad Dog https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-25708024 etc.) and/or to practice ritual human sacrifice for medicinal purposes (as still they do in Voodo in continental Africa where many will eat the body parts of white people, albinos) and then force migrate these slaves through a state or Federal Territory where they obtained "freedom" and "citizen of the United States" status, and then transport them by the tens of millions into the Northern States where they could wreak havoc upon the free white citizens, turning peaceful cities into warzones and hellscapes and terrorizing white women and children (driving them out of the cities), depriving them of safe childhoods and education, and life, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom but on a much larger scale.
" Supreme Court justices who abandoned stare decisis, the foundation principle of common law". The "common law" rule for Abortion was that legal personhood attached to an unborn person upon first motion "quickening". The Supreme Court could have decided that state laws permitting abortion all violate Equal Protection Rights of "Unborn" "Persons". Such as the current statute in New York, where a baby that as being born and whose head has crowned through his mother's vagina and is visible, can be shot dead or cut in half by the "doctor" or "midwife" if s/he deems it advisable to kill the baby (without the mother's consent), and such killing is not deemed a "crime" since the 2019 New York statute. That New York statute could easily be deemed to violate Equal Protection rights of the currently-being-born people.
P.S. “corporations are people” The DNC is a "corporation" that spends money to influence elections and "to enable the wealthy to purchase control of our government." If a group of middle income people pool their money and built a car factory, and they profit from their industry, why should those productive people be banned from using some of that money to use speech to influence others in elections? Do you want to pass a general law that ordains that wealthy people cannot use their own money to promote their views? If you are unwilling to enact such a general law, you have no logical basis to complain about Citizens United decision.
Currently, corporations are people. With GenAI, it may be possible to have a one-man corporation populated only by Artificial Intelligence "Agents"..
What is the actual language that you're talking about in a NY statute that provides that "where a baby that as being born" and its "head" is partially "visible," it "can be shot dead or cut in half by the 'doctor' or 'midwife' if s/he deems it advisable to kill the baby (without the mother's consent)"?
Quote [What is the actual language that you're talking about in a NY statute that provides that "where a baby that as being born" and its "head" is partially "visible," it "can be shot dead or cut in half by the 'doctor' ] Here is the text: https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/S240
New York defines a live "birth" as "the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception" Note "born" is "complete expulsion" Thus, stabbing the full term healthy human baby in the eye and brain while it is being born (with one toe still inside its mother) is a legal abortion in New York. Under the NY statute, all members of the public have the privilege to "abort" the "unborn" baby of anyone else that they deem unfit or unsuited, without criminal penalty. The "unborn" have no rights or protections in the Criminal Law of New York.
Meanwhile, Doctors are empowered to perform abortions without the consent of the mother if (in his "reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case .... the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health". (New York’s old law only allowed for late-term exceptions to protect the mother’s "life". New York’s new law does not explicitly define "health" and the term includes her feelings and mental health) Thus a doctor obsessed with preventing Climate Change may unilaterally prevent a mother's post-partum depression, or reduce a theoretical risk of birth complications, help her avoid the mental strain of raising an unruly teenager, or reduce the health affects of increased global warming caused by birth, by unilaterally slaughtering the baby as its head emerges from the birth canal or during a C-section operation.
P.S. New York Law mandates that money must be collected and paid to Doctors for performing abortions (instead of live birth) and must be paid by every employer even churches, regardless that the meat is wasted.
If "corporations are people," then why not "people are corporations"? On that basis, I could deduct from my taxes the depreciation of my home, the expense of commuting to work, the wages and taxes I pay for a gardener, etc. [Elon Musk is happily bragging that he spent over a quarter of a billion dollars to get Trump elected. You can bet that every dime is a deductible expense for one of his many corporations. I can't even deduct the measly $100 I contributed to one of the campaigns.]
I very much appreciate your perspective here, David, but I’m puzzled as to why the January 6 pardons have “Top 5” significance to the legal community. Clemency, sentence commuting, and indictment dismissals seem to be fairly bread and butter of the executive privilege.
It’s obviously your platform and your call about what constitutes significance. And while certainly significant to the defendants and their legal teams, as well as the prosecuting attorneys, I don’t see broad applicability to the legal community for this action. Unless it’s just a numbers game? Significance = interest (aka clickbait)? What am I missing?
Personally I think President Biden’s last minute “pardons without a crime” present much more interesting fodder for legal debate. They raised important issues for lawyers to work out, such as what fundamentally constitutes a pardon by definition? Does it require a specifically referenced crime, as historic precedence seems to infer? Does the existence of a pardon necessarily estop investigation, or just prosecution? And would those pardons stand up in court if any crimes are discovered to have been committed by the recipients?
Politically charged questions, for sure. But also important legal ones that could have long term significance for the practice of criminal law.
I personally don’t have much interesting to say about pardons. They lie in this limbo between politics and law, and I try to stick to legal commentary; unlike many other legal journalists, I do not aspire to political punditry. (I did it for a few months at Wonkette, and I was not good at it.)
Biden's pardons of his family members referred to a limitation to "nonviolent" federal offenses. So, they certainly can be "investigated and prosecuted" for crimes outside the purported scope of the pardons.
As for your question about "investigation", an investigation could lead to "accomplices" who were not pardoned. The pardon would deprive the principal offender of a 5th Amendment Privilege against SelfIncrimination. So the Pardons actually invite and facilitate "investigations".
I had thoughts along a very similar vein — especially the possibility of investigations to uncover accomplices. In a way, the pardons without a specified wrongdoing seem to point any investigation at specific targets to examine.
And even if the pardon can forestall sentencing, there’s nothing to prevent the details of an investigation from being aired in the court of public opinion. In which case the pardons themselves could prevent the recipients from mounting much of a defense. It all seems so messy and strange.
David, Because you invited us to comment on the pardons, let me add my thoughts on why I have not been in the least bit upset about Trump pardoning the Jan. 6 rioters.
Reason #1: I will acknowledge that I do see the events of that day differently than how the mainstream media would like to project things. To me, it was a fancy dress competition. I mean look at this image from the day (https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/rockcms/2024-07/240712-Jacob-Chansley-QAnon-Shaman-ew-543p-821545.jpg) and tell me how it was NOT a fancy dress competition? Relatedly, it is more than likely that a majority of the individuals - if not everyone of those out protesting that day at the Capitol were gun owners. I ask - if January 6th was a violent insurrection (as Jack Smith would like to call it) - where were the guns on that day? Not one police officer died as a result of gun fire. In fact, it is debatable how many police officers and law enforcement personnel died in the first place AS A RESULT OF JANUARY 6TH. Here's an excerpt from The New York Times:
"Officer Brian D. Sicknick of the Capitol Police, who was attacked by the mob, died on Jan. 7. Officer Jeffrey Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department killed himself after the attack. Officer Howard S. Liebengood of the Capitol Police also died by suicide four days afterward. The Capitol Police had previously said that Officer Sicknick died from injuries sustained “while physically engaging with protesters.” The Washington medical examiner later ruled that he had died of natural causes: multiple strokes that occurred hours after Officer Sicknick’s confrontation with the mob. The medical examiner added, however, that “all that transpired played a role in his condition.” The police agencies have not classified the four total suicides as “line of duty” deaths that would provide the victims’ families with enhanced benefits. Washington law excludes suicide deaths from the line-of-duty designation."
So yes I surely see January 6th differently than many of your readers (or readers of The New York Times) who are perpetually outraged/ hysterical by anything the right does.
Reason #2: Roughly around the time that Jan. 6 happened, we also saw protests from the Black Lives Matter movement. That movement resulted in destruction of property worth billions of dollars, some deaths, and immense misery to ordinary citizens who happened to live in cities like Seattle and Portland. What actions were taken against those protestors? Very little and in fact, those protestors were egged on by the left and the same folks who asked for social distancing all through 2020 suddenly turned coy when BLM protestors were congregating at close quarters. A two-tiered justice system where protestors in favor of a popular cause go unpunished while the system comes out with all its fury against protestors of a different ilk is fundamentally unjust and unfair and I believe such is the case here. I also suspect that is how many of the 77 million Americans who voted for President Trump feel if they couldn't precisely articulate their feelings into words in the manner I have done here.
Lastly, I left my best and most important reason, reason #3, for the end. Candidate Trump repeatedly telegraphed his intentions during his campaign that he would pardon the January 6th rioters. In contrast, President Biden kept saying that he would not pardon his son. That was an unconditional statement. He never said that he would pardon his son if Trump won; he simply said - *no* *pardon* *under* *any* *circumstance*. Here is the exact quote:
"I'm extremely proud of my son, Hunter," Mr. Biden said. "He has overcome an addiction. He's one of the brightest, most decent men I know. And I am satisfied that I'm not gonna do anything. I said I abide by the jury decision. I will do that. And I will not pardon him."
After the formal news conference concluded, a reporter asked the president if he will commute his son's sentence.
And btw, Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre repeatedly said that same thing from her perch:
"I've answered this question before. It was asked of me not too long ago, a couple of weeks ago, and I was very clear, and I said no,” she said, referring to previous comments from the podium.
So Candidate Trump repeatedly telegraphed his intentions that he would pardon the Jan. 6th rioters if elected, Biden (and his Press Secretary) categorically and repeatedly said that he would not pardon Hunter Biden and then people went to the voting booth and voted as they did. Under the circumstances I would say that the pardons issued for the Jan. 6th rioters had democratic legitimacy whereas the pardons issued by President Biden hand over fist in his last few days in office, especially of his son but also of his extended family members, completely lacked democratic legitimacy and represent a fraud on the American public.
So yes, in every respect, given those three reasons, I I am cool with the pardons of the Jan. 6th rioters. (FWIW, I wrote in Nikki Haley on my Presidential ballot while being a voter in the most important battleground state of Pennsylvania, so it is safe to say that I am no Trump-acolyte. But yes, I refuse to think like the mainstream media would like us to. They are nothing but hypocrites and courtiers for the Democratic party as opposed to somehow being neutral arbiters of truth.)
Sutirtha, might you be missing the forest for the trees? The real issue here isn't about "left" or "right" or whether multiple political factions merely were responsible for violence. As SCOTUS correctly emphasizes, we should look to the text of our Constitution and its purposes. Article VI emphasizes that the first and foremost duty of every public servant is to "support [our] Constitution."
Article II emphasizes how Trump as president was and is required to support our Constitution. He must "to the best of" his "Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He was and is required to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." One of the most important aspects of our Constitution is the peaceful transfer of power from the leader of one political faction to the leader of a competing political faction. Our Constitution prescribes how that must happen, including by the counting of votes that was required to occur on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump currently is protecting and even encouraging people who violated federal law (and committed federal crimes) to prevent that count of votes from occurring--people who used violence to obstruct the processes prescribed directly in our Constitution. Trump encouraged and incited the violence in 2021, and the evidence of Trump's intentions in 2021 includes Trump's actions in 2025.
This is misinformation. The EO permitted affirmative action, which of course as practiced for the last 50 years *permits* discrimination in hiring.
Supporting affirmative action in 2025 is like opposing gay marriage in 2014: obviously on the wrong side of history and increasingly unpopular. It's good that it's gone, and it's never coming back.
I disagree completely. A quick search finds this from WaPo:
As part of his directives targeting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives (DEI), President Donald Trump revoked a landmark executive order signed by Lyndon B. Johnson to prevent discrimination in government employment and advance racial equality.
Union leaders and labor advocates have decried the move, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s three Democratic members saying in a joint statement that rescinding the 1965 order will remove “a source of protection against discrimination for the millions of Americans working for companies that receive federal dollars.”
“We should be standing up for working Americans, not weakening their civil rights,” the members said, noting that the principles of Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 “have stood the test of time and remained in place through both Democratic and Republican administrations.”
The policy has led to a more diverse workforce over the past 40 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and provided protections for workers from discriminatory practices. In 1989, women employed by the Harris Bank of Chicago who said they received lower pay than their male co-workers and were given fewer opportunities to advance recouped $14 million in back pay in 1989 because of the executive order.
- "Trump revoked an anti-discrimination hiring rule. Here’s what it means" by Vivian Ho, Washington Post
Affirmative action is racist and everyone knows it and it's now pretty unpopular (even among its supposed beneficiaries!). It's not coming back. Sorry.
President Trump's Executive Order can be construed as modifying the prior Executive Orders that defined the "blue list" type status of Foreigners present in the United States:
"Children born in the United States to [Blue Listed] accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”[2]"
"USCIS confirms with the Department of State whether the applicant’s parent(s) was on the Blue List at the time of the child’s birth. If an applicant did not have a parent on the Blue List at the time of his or her birth in the United States, then the applicant is a U.S. citizen because the applicant did not have full diplomatic immunity and was therefore subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of birth."
Trump's Executive Order in effect, confers "Blue List" status upon the both parents of a baby during the moment of its birth (The moment that defines birthright status as US Citizen or Not). Therefore, one could argue that Trump has in effect granted momentary "Diplomatic Immunity" to illegal aliens only and exactly at the moment that the female is giving birth, with respect to any state-law or federal-law crimes that such illegal aliens shall be committing at that particular moment in time. Thus, Trump has properly exercised a lawful Power of the President of the United States in respect to his Executive Order concerning Illegal Aliens.
Since the US President can at-will change the "Blue List", and expel foreigners, he has always had the power to define whose offspring shall not/be born a US Citizen and subject to the US Military Draft Laws and other Federal Tax Liabilities even if raised in a foreign country:
“Birthright citizenship obviously doesn’t apply in case of war or invasion,” he told Josh Blackman, a conservative law professor (and a supporter of birthright citizenship). “No one to my knowledge has ever argued that the children of invading aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship. And I can’t imagine what the legal argument for that would be.”
So how come this one’s unlocked? // Anyplace else you publish or are you solo behind the substack paywall? I can’t afford ANY subscription . . . this is pathetic.
David, thank you for this opportunity to comment on Trump's "DEI" (and sometimes "A" ) fixation and the media's shallow (and incorrect) understanding about how it all works with respect to employment decision making in the federal government. The government's program is shallow and absurd. The only thing more ridiculous is Trump's ham-fisted response to it.
I've litigated this issue and shown that, contrary to popular belief, the government's "DEI" policy -- which has gone by other names over the last 50+ years -- actually discriminates against minority and female federal employees. It can be proven. I know this because I proved it. My statistical showing was so unpopular among the government muckety mucks I worked with (mostly Democrats) that I I lost my government job because of it.
I've been unsuccessful in my efforts to get the media to debunk the myth that white males are being harmed by the government's program. Appreciate the chance to vent my frustration here.
A friend insists that one of the J 6'ers pardoned actually defecated on Nancy Pelosi's desk. He cannot document this but insists that he read that in at least two news articles. Is any of that true?
Brothers and Sisters, Believers of the One True Faith, today we stand at Ground Zero, not as a place of sorrow, but as the birthing ground of a new America. Here, at this site, once defiled by infidels, we dedicate the Monument to our Islamic Martyrs. They are not dead, they live in the glory of their sacrifice.
This monument is not just stone and metal, it is the foundation of our future. It is a beacon for our pregnant women, who will now be required to come here, to Ground Zero, during the ninth month of their blessed pregnancies. Here, on this sacred ground, they will deliver the next generation of diverse American citizens to Rule the Saqaliba under Holy Shariah Law. We declare that this site is not a place of mourning, but a place of creation, a testament to the triumph of Islam and the growing power of our 1.5 Billion Ummah.
The cries of our martyrs will be replaced by the cries of our babies, the sounds of victory. Let the infidels tremble at the sight of our strength. This is our holy land, and we will populate it with One Billion children of our faith, the future leaders of a truly Islamic States of America.
And, Insha Allah, we will soon open the first slave market for the Saqaliba and Abeed of America, where the wealth and labor of the unbelievers shall serve our noble cause.
أيها الإخوة والأخوات، يا مؤمنين بالدين الحق الواحد، نقف اليوم في جراوند زيرو، ليس كمكان للحزن، بل كمهد ولادة لأمريكا جديدة. هنا، في هذا الموقع الذي دنسته الكفار، نكرس نصبًا تذكاريًا لشهداء الإسلام. إنهم ليسوا أمواتًا، بل يحيون في مجد تضحياتهم.
هذا النصب ليس مجرد حجر ومعدن، إنه أساس مستقبلنا. إنه منارة لنسائنا الحوامل، اللاتي سيُطلب منهن الآن الحضور إلى هنا، إلى جراوند زيرو، خلال الشهر التاسع من حملهن المبارك. هنا، على هذه الأرض المقدسة، سيضعن الجيل القادم من المواطنين الأمريكيين المتنوعين. نعلن أن هذا الموقع ليس مكانًا للعزاء، بل مكانًا للخلق، وشهادة على انتصار الإسلام والقوة المتنامية لأمتنا.
سيحل صراخ أطفالنا محل صرخات شهدائنا، أصوات النصر. لترتعد الكفار من رؤية قوتنا. هذه أرضنا المقدسة، وسوف نملأها بأطفال إيماننا، والقادة المستقبليين لأمريكا إسلامية حقيقية.
وإن شاء الله، سنفتتح قريباً أول سوق للعبيد من الصقالبة والعبيد في أمريكا، حيث ستخدم ثروة وعمل الكفار قضيتنا النبيلة.
This was an informative article, containing a lot of facts about current events and some insights as to probable future consequences. I was glad to see the URL link to the EO purporting to End BirthrightCitizenship. The EO starts with a misrepresentation of the Dred Supreme Court precedent that held: States cannot unilaterally make anyone a "citizen of the United States". Rather, states can, by positive enactments, only make blacks and whites as slaves or as "citizens of the state". 2) US Law prohibits slaves and descendants of slaves the birthright status of "citizens of the United States". While the opinion focuses upon blacks as a class, the opinion does not state that race alone (apart from slave descent) is legally sufficient to prevent birthright US citizenship. The Amistad case held that blacks brought into the US can be NOT SLAVES. And, (no disrespect to Lincoln) as a matter of statutory interpretation, Dred Scot was probably a correct view of the legislative intent of the framers of the US Constitution which contemplated the right of states to continue their institution of slavery. Thus, the EO is a misrepresentation of Dred Scott. As far as the rule of birthright prescribed in the EO, the President does not set forth a legal argument to support it. But...US Citizenship is a grant of POLITIAL POWER over the people subject to the Government. US Citizenship confers the power to change the Laws and Change the Constitution (if 1 Billion Muslims migrate here and reproduce they could reopen Islamic slave markets to sell the Saqaliba according to The Will of Allah) No rational system of government of a free people permits invaders to obtain political power over the existing population simply by engaging in sex and reproduction within the borders. It is well established that the Fourteenth Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship upon the US-born children of Foreign Diplomats (e.g., United Nations personnel, Embassy occupants). The President presumably has authority to confer or withdraw "Diplomatic Immunity" status upon non-Embassadors (outside of Treaties). So, the President can presumably declare that non-treaty foreigners (not protected by Treaty or Statute) have a kind of Psuedo-Diplomatic status that prevents them from having the power to unilaterally create new US Citizens. Question.. Why should an illegal-alien mother have greater political power (power to infest the US with her kind of offsping) than the wife of an invited Foreign Embassador???? Why would an MS-13 Member and his slave wives illegally being merely present and alive within the US have greater power to colonize and out-vote the native-born American people? Further, the US Supreme Court has mentioned that the traditional common law rule is that the government has the right to capture and SLAY all aliens illegally present upon the jurisdiction (apart from Treaties). So, the common law power to destroy and kill implies the power to sterilize or to prevent the birth of offspring or to prevent the offsping born from obtaining political power over the offspring of nativeborn US citizens. No rational group of free people would submit to Rule by whoever shows up illegally and out-reproduces them
The last several days have clarified why I’m happy to be an old guy – I won’t be around to see the destruction of the country that has been so good to me.
I’m a “birthright” citizen. My parents emigrated from Canada just before WWII, and I was born before they became naturalized citizens. I was fortunate to contribute to and benefit from what historians will likely view as the apogee of innovation in the United States.
We did the impossible, putting a man on the moon in less than ten years, start to finish. We made incredible advances in medicine, some of which are why I’m alive today. I have more computing power in my Apple watch than was present on the first mainframe I programmed, and we made the Dick Tracy wrist radio a reality. Even when I was in college, no one envisioned the reach of the Internet, for better or worse.
What I fail to understand is why your fellow lawyers are so eager to destroy the country that gave them the opportunity to succeed…and to speak freely.
This isn’t about Trump. He’s the shill, the carny barker. He’s too stupid to realize how he’s being used. The real culprits are behind the scenes.
Your fellow lawyers polished and promoted the careers of the Supreme Court justices who abandoned stare decisis, the foundation principle of common law, and blithely extended the legal convenience that “corporations are people” to enable the wealthy to purchase control of our government.
Your fellow lawyers are the authors of every foolish executive order Trump has issued, some of which may have disastrous consequences for our country.
Don’t be surprised when the puppet masters order Trump to ignore the law. And don’t be surprised when Trump anoints the Proud Boys with police powers; they’ll happily wear jackboots.
Follow the money!
I’m in the same boat as you: the child of immigrants who didn’t have green cards and were not yet naturalized at the time of my birth. So I would also not be a citizen under this order.
Basic literacy contradicts your statement that offspring of persons "not yet naturalized at the time of my birth" would be denied political power under the Executive Order. Why not click the link for the EO that David provided and read the two specified categories of born persons who are not entitled to political power as a birthright. Were your parents illegal aliens, or "tourists" or on "student visa" when they were "not yet naturalized at the time of my birth"???
Does it seem to you that the purported analysis of the Trump administration regarding who can or cannot be a citizen (and specifically invoking "jurisdiction") is remarkably reminiscent of the purported analysis of jurisdiction and citizenship in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)? It sure seems so to me.
This issue in Dred Scott was "whether the descendants of" people who entered the U.S. in a particular manner "are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States." Id. at 403. If they are not citizens (because of the particular manner in which one or both parents entered the U.S.), then they cannot "show" that they are "within the jurisdiction of [any federal] court" in a case that, by definition, must be between "citizens of different States." Id. at 402.
Promptly thereafter (promptly after the nation finished fighting the Civil War precipitated, in part, by the conduct of SCOTUS justices in Dred Scott), our Constitution was amended specifically to emphatically dispose of the issues regarding jurisdiction raised in Dred Scott. The Fourteenth Amendment was a brutal slap in the face and smackdown by Congress and the People of the SCOTUS justices responsible for the dreadful so-called judgment and opinions in Dred Scott:
"All persons born [ ] in the United States" are (as a result of such birth) "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." As a result, "No State" has any power to "make or enforce any law" that "abridge[s any] privileges or immunities of [such] citizens of the United States; nor" does "any State" have any power to "deny to any person [regardless of citizenship, color, creed or sex] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Citizenship", and political power within a "Democracy" invented by Greeks is not a "human right" of anyone who voluntarily invades the territory (of a Kingdom or of a Democracy). Else, any people established as freemen in a place could be lawfully enslaved/ruled by the invaders. Dred Scot decision cited Roman precedents and was entirely consistent with the Greek/Roman concept that CITIZENSHIP was a political privilege of great VALUE to be withheld as deemed necessary by the existing Citizens (for their mutual survival and freedom). Not even the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment purported to grant full political power to criminally-deviant black freedmen. Each of these three civil war amendments contains explicit exceptions for "crime", to prevent criminals from taking power control over the free population/citizens. Illegal aliens are a species of criminals and, at common law were OUTLAWS that could be lawfully slain upon detection by any bystander. No Free People before U.S. liberal maniacs have ever experimented with, advocated for, (nor survived) "birthright citizenship" to criminals/invaders.
Your argument that the First Section of the Fourteenth Amendment makes ["All persons born [ ] in the United States" are (as a result of such birth) "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"] creates a cause-and-effect rule that is specifically contradicted by the language of that provision itself (rendering the words "born subject to the jurisdiction thereof" superfluous and null, violating the first principle of statutory construction). As such, no one should take anything else that you have stated as credible on face value.
P.S. "equal protection of the laws" is vested in all "persons" regardless of citizenship, and (according to the text of the fourteenth and fifteenth), does not include political rights.
Your view is founded, in part, on your contention that "Illegal aliens" (at some unspecified point in our history) purportedly "could be lawfully slain upon detection by any bystander." Where did you get that?
Your view is founded, in part, on your contention that "No Free People before U.S. liberal maniacs have ever experimented with, advocated for, (nor survived) 'birthright citizenship' to criminals/invaders." Where exactly do you think the people who became American citizens in the 1770's came from? How exactly do you think they and their children became American citizens?
Our nation was founded by many people who were criminals--and they knew it. Do you have any idea why our Declaration of Independence ends with the words "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor"? Because those men knew they were committing treason (for which they could be hung and their property confiscated), and they were encouraging all Americans to join them. America wouldn't exist at all without a huge proportion of citizens who were considered criminals. Put another way, a man in the American colonies between 1776 and 1783 almost could not have been a true blue American without having been a criminal.
American: Criminals = Founders? Rebels are typically deemed "criminals" if the ruler/sovereign is not ousted. The status of "criminal" attached to "rebels" is only conditional, because if the rebellion is successful, the "rebels" thereupon obtain the Sovereign Power to Pardon/Absolve themselves of the taint. Such was the cases in the American Revolution, which was successful. Further, in the Treaty of Paris, the English Crown withdrew any claim of jurisdiction to deem the "citizens of the United States" as being "criminals", even should these citizens venture into Canada or other continuing domains of the Crown. Your point, insofar as the discussion is about "birthright citizenship" is nonsensical. The ruling group (current citizens of the United States) "jointly" exercise "sovereignty" to declare Law/Crime (Chisholm v. Georgia) , and American citizens HAVE DONE SO in more than two centuries of laws defining lawful versus unlawful entries into the US. The mere birth of the child of an illegal alien (a species of criminal) does not overthow the sovereignty of the US Citizens the way that the American Revolution overthew the English Crown (and the Native Indians).
The major point of the Dred Scott decision was that the militant White Supremacists who used concerted militant white supremacist violence to Seize Power and Sovereignty from the English Crown (and from the Native Indians) and who concertedly Ordained the US Constitution to preserve the hard fought "liberty" of the white supremacists "progeny" (as against the Indians and as against the Islamic State Navy Barbary "Pirates") did not go to all that trouble and expense for the benefit of African people who were deemed "slaves" by the Law of Africa. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/amistad
This is a false Chicken and The Egg Paradox. "Where exactly do you think the people who became American citizens in the 1770's came from? How exactly do you think they and their children became American citizens?" Treaties and writings preceding the US Constitution refer to "citizens of the United States". The US Constitution, in its requirements for Congress and President, requires born-citizen status: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;" Presidents George Washington, Adams, Jefferson were obviously "born" prior to the US Constitution. So, US citizenship was established prior to the US Constitution by the Founding White Supremacists who used concerted militant white supremacist violence to Seize Power and Sovereignty from the English Crown (and from the Native Indians). See discussion in Chisholm v. Georgia https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/2us419 The Founding White Supremacists themselves defined and conferred the status of "American" born "citizen" upon each other, as an exercise of White Supremacist Military Power and Jurisdiction, as likewise did the Greeks and the Romans before them. Accord, Dred Scott decision.
My "contention that "Illegal aliens" (at some unspecified point in our history) purportedly "could be lawfully slain upon detection by any bystander." is confirmed in the text of a US Supreme Court Decision that I once read that specifically confirmed such to have been the "common law" rule and the Law of Nations. This ancient rule is modified by positive law e.g., Treaties and by US Constitutional Limitations (Due Process etc), and state regulations, but the underlying disability and outlaw status remains at the core of the common law concept of born subject/citizen status.
It seems that Judge Ho and I are on the same side of this issue, according to the article, "Is Trump’s Plan to End Birthright Citizenship ‘Dred Scott II’?"
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/27/us/politics/trump-birthright-citizenship-dred-scott.html?unlocked_article_code=1.s04.xQsZ.R5kbNnerK5cL&smid=url-share
Quote: "“From our experience with Dred Scott,” Mr. Dellinger added, “we had learned that our country should never again trust to judges or politicians the power to deprive from a class born on our soil the right of citizenship.”
So, every child of a foreign diplomat or chinese tourist (e.g., visiting the United Nations or the Grand Canyon) can be DRAFTED into the US Army upon being raised in a foreign land (by his foreign parents) at the age of 18 (because "born... subject to the jurisdiction"????)
"Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”[2]"
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-3 The legal status of "foreign" and subject to removal is controlled by the King/President. As such, the US President Trump has the lawful power to grant immunity-from-US-citizenship(and US Military Draft) to the offspring born in the US to foreigners who are themselves subject to removal from the US by the President.
The NY Times article you cite contains this ridiculous false assertion: "The idea that children born in the United States automatically become citizens of the United States has deep roots in the common law. But it was not adopted in the constitutional text until 1868," The "common law" existed for the benefit of "freemen" (Magna Carta of 1215) and operated within the scope of a MONARCHY subject to some extent to a Parliament. There were NO CITIZENS at the time of English Common Law rule in America. The lawful inhabitants were called "subjects" all the way up to the US Declaration of Independence. The Treaty that ended the Revolutionary War refers to British "subjects" and American "citizens". https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/treaty-of-paris Thus, it is legally impossible that the concept of "birthright citizenship" was regulated by the English "common law".
Quote: [In its most monumentally erroneous decision [Dred Scot], the Supreme Court created a monstrous exception to the common law rule that birth on American soil to a free person was sufficient for American citizenship,” he said.] This is complete nonsense. The concept of "American citizenship" was invented by colonial white people around the time of the Revolutionary War, and was informed by the common law rule that persons born are "born subjects" of the Crown. But, this "born subjects" rule did not necessarily apply to the offspring of foreign diplomats or of "merchants" temporarily permitted to enter. Would a foreign diplomat or merchant whose child was born in US Hospital want his child later to be DRAFTED into service in the Military of the Crown (or Military of the modern United States)?
Quote: [Madison in 1800 and a unanimous SCOTUS in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) emphasized the obvious and profound [difference between] a British subject, not an American citizen:
Madison [emphasized that our original] Constitution created a form of government under which ‘The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty.’ The structure of the government [prescribed by our Constitution] dispersed power in reflection of the people’s distrust of concentrated power, and of power itself at all levels. This form of government was ‘altogether different’ from the British form, under which the Crown [or Parliament] was sovereign and the people were [mere] subjects. In On Liberty, Mill wrote about the liberty of British subjects. It should be clear to anyone who understands our Constitution that a vast difference separate American citizens from British subjects. This vast difference is American sovereignty ...]
Quote [Those amendments highlighted that speech, including suffrage (the right and power to vote regarding our representatives, our public servants), was the primary power of political sovereignty.]
https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/on-liberty-is-on-sovereignty
So Jack, why do you seem to feel compelled to vest American "sovereignty" into the offspring of foreign "Tourists" and foreign "criminals" who happened to be present in the United States, and who may have afterwards raised their foreign baby entirely outside the United States, and educated in the way and duty of Jihad and Caliphate?
The fact that concepts relevant to citizenship have "deep roots in the common law" means more than you seem to realize. Even you acknowledged (in a different comment) that the concept of "citizens" was not invented in the U.S. or in the 1770's. In your other comment, you invoked Greek and Roman societies from thousands of years ago. In ancient Athens (about 2,500 years ago), a citizen was a free man of Athens.
I do not see where you are making any relevant point whatsoever, nor contradiction anything that I stated. Dred Scot cited Roman Law (of Slavery versus Citizenship) and is entirely consistent with Roman/Greek concepts of birthright citizenship being limited to the offspring of citizens. Greeks had citizens and slaves living in same house, and the mere fact of being born in Greece/Athens did not make that person a "citizen" of Athens/Greece. Would the Greek concept of Democracy have survived even 100 years if every slave-baby born in Greece was deemed a "citizen" with voting power?
Theoretically, Dred Scott itself permitted States to vest black freedmen or black slaves as "citizens of the State". (The 14th ordains that states cannot DENY state citizenship to migrated US Citizens) That power to grant Non-US State-Citizen and voting/ruling status remains vested in the States. So, theoretically, the state ruled by liberal maniacs could declare that The Political Power (citizenship/voting officership) in State X shall be vested in All Pious Islamist Muslims Born In Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt who shall manifest a Desire and Duty to Jihad and Rule over the Dhimmis/Kafir/Saqaliba/Abeed in state X as such Desire shall be conclusively evidenced by their migration into State X in defiance of the Kafir US Statutes.
Although Dred Scot contains broad statements as to the scope of disability to become a US Citizen, it is a determination limited by the FACTs in the case to the result of the status of "slave". "The question with which we are now dealing is, whether a person of the African race can be a citizen of the United States, and become thereby entitled to a special privilege, by virtue of his title to that character, and which, under the Constitution, no one but a citizen can claim." ;"n making oct his case, states that he is of African descent, was born a slave, and claims that he and his family became entitled to freed in by being taken by their owner to reside in a territory where slavery is prohibited by act of Congress--and that, in addition to this claim, he himself became entitled to freedom being taken to Rock Island, in the State of Illinois--and being free when he was brought back to Missouri, he was by the laws of that State a citizen." "e said plaintiff, Dred Scott, is not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, because he is a negro of African descent; his ancestors were of pure African blood, and were brought into this country and sold as negro slaves". The ratio decidendi in Dred Scott does not apply to blacks who were not brought into the US as "slaves" https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/amistad Dred Scot itself recites the factual limitations on its ruling:" "It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of ... the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves."
The ratio decidendi in Dred Scott does not apply to blacks who were not brought into the US as "slaves" https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/amistad Dred Scot itself recites the factual limitations on its ruling:" "It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of ... the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves."
Not even close to true. Article VI expressly precluded any "religious test" and expressly required all public servants to "support this Constitution" to preclude the scenario you suggested.
No. Citizenship is an OFFICE that vests POLITICAL POWER (and the right to possess firearms, per Dred Scott) into the hands of such citizen/officer. Liberal Maniacs can enact a state law that effectively vests the ruling status of citizen (voting officer) upon every "foreign born islamist who comes into this state, and their offspring born here (or born anywhere)" as a class. This exact and entire point of "birthright US citizenship" is to vest political power in the offspring of Pious Islamists who shall come into the US illegally to give birth to baby islamists (even if the baby islamist is then removed from the US and raised and educated in a Islamist Madrassa in Afghanistan and then upon reaching gun-carrying age the young islamist has a "constitutional right as a US Citizen" to ENTER the United States and to make or buy firearms (and vote) in the glory and service of Allah. There is no "support this Constitution" limitation nor a "religious test" limitation upon the concept of "Birthright Citizenship". The Constitution is a vestige of the White Supremacy that ordained it (the Preamble explicitly promises to protect the "liberty" of the white "progeny" as against "pirates" (AKA Barbary Pirates of the Islamic State Navy) and the US Constitution will only exist during the age of vestigial White Supremacy. Pious Islamist US Citizens, with 4 wives and many babies, and upon obtaining majority population, can after all can dissolve the US Constitution and replace it with an Islamic Caliphate if they are so inclined.
Roger, I like a lot of what you wrote, but there is one crucial exception: "stare decisis" may be as you wrote "the foundation principle of common law." But old opinions by judges manifestly are not "the foundation principle" of our Constitution. Our Constitution was written by (mostly) lawyers to remedy the egregious abuses of power by judges and the people they supported (kings and nobles). Stare decisis must be one of the most absurd doctrines that judges abuse to justify violating our Constitution.
When the people amend our Constitution, the most recent amendment governs. When legislators create law, the most recent law governs. That's common sense. But for some bizarre reason, we pretend that the first lawyers and judge(s) to write about a legal issue should influence (or even control) instead of the more recent--and better--analysis of later lawyers and judges. How does that make sense? Stare decisis is responsible for extreme and extremely egregious abuses of power and people. Stare decisis perpetuates the vestiges of vicious abuses of power (including slavery) to this very day.
Stare decisis is the primary reason that judicial opinions are pathetically weakly reasoned. Judicial judgments that are extremely strongly supported by our Constitution (e.g., Roe and Casey) were thrown out by SCOTUS justices because Roe and Casey were weakly supported by lawyers and judges. But the reasoning of the majority in Dobbs was as pathetically weak as that of the majority in Roe. Dobbs may be supported by stare decisis, but it clearly violated our Constitution in multiple obvious respects.
Can't entirely disagree, but stare decisis had the very real value of making the law predictable.
Alito's opinion in Dobbs is simply dishonest. Using the lack of historical documentation from a period when women were second-class citizens to return them to second-class citizenship is absurd. Worse, Alito used as one justification the self-published writings of an obscure author who openly expressed hatred for women. Alito ignored the far better known, 300 years later, Jonathon Swift essay, "A Modest Proposal," whose very premise would have been senseless if abortion weren't a common procedure.
Did stare decisis serve the purpose of making the law predictable? Consider this obvious example. The SCOTUS majority in Dobbs literally and blatantly lied about the Ninth Amendment, and they pretended that their lie was supported by a prior decision. The majority in Dobbs (twice) knowingly misrepresented that the Ninth Amendment stated a mere "reservation of rights to the people," and (adding insult to injury) they even cited Roe as purported precedent for that falsehood.
After the Dobbs majority blatantly lied about the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, they blatantly violated it. They focused myopically on the obviously irrelevant fact that “[t]he Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion," and they pretended (misrepresented) that "therefore those who claim that [our Constitution] protects [any] right [at issue] must show that the right is somehow implicit in the constitutional text.”
The misrepresentation of law and violation of law by the Dobbs majority was clearly barred by the plain text and plain meaning the People in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. In a single sentence, the People used the Ninth Amendment to command that “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution" of any "rights, shall not be construed to deny or [even] disparage others retained by the people.”
The Ninth Amendment clearly was not merely a "reservation of rights." It expressly and emphatically commanded judges not to do exactly what the Dobbs majority did, i.e., not construe our Constitution "to deny or [even] disparage" any right "retained by the people" on the grounds that a right was not expressly included in any "enumeration in the Constitution." That command was clearly directed especially at judges whose duty is to construe the law (say what the law is).
The Dobbs majority used the foregoing lie about the law and violation of our Constitution to pretend to justify shifting the crucial burden of proof--from the government (when it infringed on rights) onto citizens (asserting rights). Their conduct also was contrary to the plain text and plain purpose of the Tenth Amendment. SCOTUS has only limited powers, and it must prove that it was given the power to do what it did.
Article VI requires every public servant to support our Constitution. The SCOTUS majority in Dobbs (and the state legislators they empowered) did exactly the opposite. They viciously and maliciously undermined our Constitution to support their own religious views.
Quote: "Jonathon Swift essay, "A Modest Proposal,"
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
This proposal does reference abortion:
"There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us, sacrificing the poor innocent babes, I doubt, more to avoid the expence than the shame,"
"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasee, or a ragoust."
So, the "modest proposal" is to replace "abortion" with live birth followed by one year of baby care and fattening followed by slaughter and food salvage. I believe that the Chinese actually practiced this to some extent. It was also practiced in Eastern Ukraine during Holodomor. See "Holodomor" on Youtube and see movie named "Mr. Smith". It would be lawfully practicable in New York today with the modification that the human baby must be slaughtered before or while being "born".
New York defines a live birth as “the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception" Note "born" is "complete expulsion" Thus, stabbing the full term healthy human baby in the eye and brain while it is being born (with one toe still inside its mother) is a legal abortion in New York. Under the NY statute, all members of the public have the privilege to "abort" the "unborn" baby of anyone else that they deem unfit or unsuited, without criminal penalty. The "unborn" have no rights or protections under the Criminal Statutes of New York.
Too sadly it's too true: "Alito's opinion" (the opinion of the majority of SCOTUS justices) "in Dobbs is simply dishonest." But how did we get to the point at which a majority of SCOTUS justices would even believe they could successfully misrepresent the meaning of our Constitution? Stare decisis is a big part of the answer (i.e., a big part of the problem).
John Stuart Mill and Abraham Lincoln were contemporaries and impressively insightful, and each addressed the problem posed by the judicial custom of stare decisis in similar but different ways.
In 1859, Mill published "On Liberty," in which he emphasized the dangers of a "tyranny of the majority" and of the "deep slumber of decided opinion." Clearly, stare decisis imposes both dangers on us. The opinions and judgments of the SCOTUS majorities in Dobbs (2022) and Dred Scott (in 1857) were good examples of the former. Roe was a good example of the latter. Dobbs happened because the justices responsible for Roe failed to present properly what they had learned about the most important principle in our Constitution.
In his first inaugural address in March 1861, President Lincoln emphasized that "if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of [the mere majority of judges on] the Supreme Court," then "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers" inasmuch as they have "practically resigned their government into the hands of" a handful of judges.
A crucial principle that SCOTUS justices (unanimously in 1964 in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan quoting James Madison in 1800) emphasized underlies SCOTUS's judgment in Roe and Casey and the judgments of President Lincoln and Mill: our "Constitution created a form of government under which ‘The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty.’"
The sovereignty of the people over their own minds and bodies, as well as over their public servants (all public officials) is the primary principle underlying our Constitution (and the judgment in Roe) and precluding the so-called judgment of the SCOTUS majority in decisions such as Dobbs.
Mill (and Lincoln) understood and presented our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution far better than most SCOTUS justices. Note the words "absolutely," "absolute," "independence" and "sovereign" in On Liberty:
Only "one very simple principle [must] govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control . . . . The only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable [answerable] to society is that which concerns [affects] others. [Regarding any action of a person] which merely concerns [affects] himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
Yet, too many judges too often presume or pretend otherwise. Justice Scalia (speaking for SCOTUS) had something to say about the illegality of such judicial custom and practice despite (and because of) its prevalence:
“communis error facit jus may be a sadly accurate description of reality," but "it is not the normative basis of [anything properly considered to be] jurisprudence. Courts may not create their own limitations on [the law, including our Constitution] no matter how alluring the policy arguments for doing so, and no matter how widely the blame may be spread” (among any quantity or putative quality of courts or judges). Brogan v. U.S., 522 U.S. 398, 400 (1998).
What exactly is your objection to the Dred Scott (1857) Decision? Quote: "Dred Scott (in 1857) were good examples of the [the dangers of a "tyranny of the majority" and of the "deep slumber of decided opinion." ]. If Dred Scott has been decided contrarywise, then any US State could mass-produce tens of millions of slaves-to-citizens on a massive scale and weaponize them. Georgia and the Southern states could have vanquished the Northern states as follows: The Southern states could farm-raise tens of millions of black slaves, constantly undernourishing them, feeding them human flesh and training them to be happy as cannibals, and educating them to go North and eat evil fat "northern" white human flesh (as video shows Africans in Africa still have a tendency to do spontaneously upon murdering someone. like Mad Dog https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-25708024 etc.) and/or to practice ritual human sacrifice for medicinal purposes (as still they do in Voodo in continental Africa where many will eat the body parts of white people, albinos) and then force migrate these slaves through a state or Federal Territory where they obtained "freedom" and "citizen of the United States" status, and then transport them by the tens of millions into the Northern States where they could wreak havoc upon the free white citizens, turning peaceful cities into warzones and hellscapes and terrorizing white women and children (driving them out of the cities), depriving them of safe childhoods and education, and life, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom but on a much larger scale.
"promoted the careers of the Supreme Court justices who abandoned stare decisis". yup, we need to hold on to Dred Scott etc tec,
" Supreme Court justices who abandoned stare decisis, the foundation principle of common law". The "common law" rule for Abortion was that legal personhood attached to an unborn person upon first motion "quickening". The Supreme Court could have decided that state laws permitting abortion all violate Equal Protection Rights of "Unborn" "Persons". Such as the current statute in New York, where a baby that as being born and whose head has crowned through his mother's vagina and is visible, can be shot dead or cut in half by the "doctor" or "midwife" if s/he deems it advisable to kill the baby (without the mother's consent), and such killing is not deemed a "crime" since the 2019 New York statute. That New York statute could easily be deemed to violate Equal Protection rights of the currently-being-born people.
P.S. “corporations are people” The DNC is a "corporation" that spends money to influence elections and "to enable the wealthy to purchase control of our government." If a group of middle income people pool their money and built a car factory, and they profit from their industry, why should those productive people be banned from using some of that money to use speech to influence others in elections? Do you want to pass a general law that ordains that wealthy people cannot use their own money to promote their views? If you are unwilling to enact such a general law, you have no logical basis to complain about Citizens United decision.
Currently, corporations are people. With GenAI, it may be possible to have a one-man corporation populated only by Artificial Intelligence "Agents"..
What is the actual language that you're talking about in a NY statute that provides that "where a baby that as being born" and its "head" is partially "visible," it "can be shot dead or cut in half by the 'doctor' or 'midwife' if s/he deems it advisable to kill the baby (without the mother's consent)"?
Quote [What is the actual language that you're talking about in a NY statute that provides that "where a baby that as being born" and its "head" is partially "visible," it "can be shot dead or cut in half by the 'doctor' ] Here is the text: https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/S240
New York defines a live "birth" as "the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception" Note "born" is "complete expulsion" Thus, stabbing the full term healthy human baby in the eye and brain while it is being born (with one toe still inside its mother) is a legal abortion in New York. Under the NY statute, all members of the public have the privilege to "abort" the "unborn" baby of anyone else that they deem unfit or unsuited, without criminal penalty. The "unborn" have no rights or protections in the Criminal Law of New York.
New York law provides that "all pregnant people (including, minors, transgender men and nonbinary people) have the right to a safe and legal abortion" up to and during the birth of the baby. https://ag.ny.gov/publications/abortion-legal-and-protected-new-york-state
Meanwhile, Doctors are empowered to perform abortions without the consent of the mother if (in his "reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case .... the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health". (New York’s old law only allowed for late-term exceptions to protect the mother’s "life". New York’s new law does not explicitly define "health" and the term includes her feelings and mental health) Thus a doctor obsessed with preventing Climate Change may unilaterally prevent a mother's post-partum depression, or reduce a theoretical risk of birth complications, help her avoid the mental strain of raising an unruly teenager, or reduce the health affects of increased global warming caused by birth, by unilaterally slaughtering the baby as its head emerges from the birth canal or during a C-section operation.
P.S. New York Law mandates that money must be collected and paid to Doctors for performing abortions (instead of live birth) and must be paid by every employer even churches, regardless that the meat is wasted.
https://becketfund.org/media/breaking-nuns-ask-supreme-court-for-protection-from-new-yorks-abortion-mandate/
https://www.osvnews.com/catholic-doctors-sue-over-er-abortion-mandate-biden-administration-put-in-place/
Compare: "Jonathon Swift essay, "A Modest Proposal,"
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
If "corporations are people," then why not "people are corporations"? On that basis, I could deduct from my taxes the depreciation of my home, the expense of commuting to work, the wages and taxes I pay for a gardener, etc. [Elon Musk is happily bragging that he spent over a quarter of a billion dollars to get Trump elected. You can bet that every dime is a deductible expense for one of his many corporations. I can't even deduct the measly $100 I contributed to one of the campaigns.]
Isn't the creation of federal departments a constitutional prerogative of Congress? Have presidents ever created them by fiat?
I very much appreciate your perspective here, David, but I’m puzzled as to why the January 6 pardons have “Top 5” significance to the legal community. Clemency, sentence commuting, and indictment dismissals seem to be fairly bread and butter of the executive privilege.
It’s obviously your platform and your call about what constitutes significance. And while certainly significant to the defendants and their legal teams, as well as the prosecuting attorneys, I don’t see broad applicability to the legal community for this action. Unless it’s just a numbers game? Significance = interest (aka clickbait)? What am I missing?
Personally I think President Biden’s last minute “pardons without a crime” present much more interesting fodder for legal debate. They raised important issues for lawyers to work out, such as what fundamentally constitutes a pardon by definition? Does it require a specifically referenced crime, as historic precedence seems to infer? Does the existence of a pardon necessarily estop investigation, or just prosecution? And would those pardons stand up in court if any crimes are discovered to have been committed by the recipients?
Politically charged questions, for sure. But also important legal ones that could have long term significance for the practice of criminal law.
I personally don’t have much interesting to say about pardons. They lie in this limbo between politics and law, and I try to stick to legal commentary; unlike many other legal journalists, I do not aspire to political punditry. (I did it for a few months at Wonkette, and I was not good at it.)
Biden's pardons of his family members referred to a limitation to "nonviolent" federal offenses. So, they certainly can be "investigated and prosecuted" for crimes outside the purported scope of the pardons.
As for your question about "investigation", an investigation could lead to "accomplices" who were not pardoned. The pardon would deprive the principal offender of a 5th Amendment Privilege against SelfIncrimination. So the Pardons actually invite and facilitate "investigations".
I had thoughts along a very similar vein — especially the possibility of investigations to uncover accomplices. In a way, the pardons without a specified wrongdoing seem to point any investigation at specific targets to examine.
And even if the pardon can forestall sentencing, there’s nothing to prevent the details of an investigation from being aired in the court of public opinion. In which case the pardons themselves could prevent the recipients from mounting much of a defense. It all seems so messy and strange.
The "Make America a Third World Nation" crowd is feeling their oats.
David, Because you invited us to comment on the pardons, let me add my thoughts on why I have not been in the least bit upset about Trump pardoning the Jan. 6 rioters.
Reason #1: I will acknowledge that I do see the events of that day differently than how the mainstream media would like to project things. To me, it was a fancy dress competition. I mean look at this image from the day (https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/rockcms/2024-07/240712-Jacob-Chansley-QAnon-Shaman-ew-543p-821545.jpg) and tell me how it was NOT a fancy dress competition? Relatedly, it is more than likely that a majority of the individuals - if not everyone of those out protesting that day at the Capitol were gun owners. I ask - if January 6th was a violent insurrection (as Jack Smith would like to call it) - where were the guns on that day? Not one police officer died as a result of gun fire. In fact, it is debatable how many police officers and law enforcement personnel died in the first place AS A RESULT OF JANUARY 6TH. Here's an excerpt from The New York Times:
"Officer Brian D. Sicknick of the Capitol Police, who was attacked by the mob, died on Jan. 7. Officer Jeffrey Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department killed himself after the attack. Officer Howard S. Liebengood of the Capitol Police also died by suicide four days afterward. The Capitol Police had previously said that Officer Sicknick died from injuries sustained “while physically engaging with protesters.” The Washington medical examiner later ruled that he had died of natural causes: multiple strokes that occurred hours after Officer Sicknick’s confrontation with the mob. The medical examiner added, however, that “all that transpired played a role in his condition.” The police agencies have not classified the four total suicides as “line of duty” deaths that would provide the victims’ families with enhanced benefits. Washington law excludes suicide deaths from the line-of-duty designation."
(https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html)
So yes I surely see January 6th differently than many of your readers (or readers of The New York Times) who are perpetually outraged/ hysterical by anything the right does.
Reason #2: Roughly around the time that Jan. 6 happened, we also saw protests from the Black Lives Matter movement. That movement resulted in destruction of property worth billions of dollars, some deaths, and immense misery to ordinary citizens who happened to live in cities like Seattle and Portland. What actions were taken against those protestors? Very little and in fact, those protestors were egged on by the left and the same folks who asked for social distancing all through 2020 suddenly turned coy when BLM protestors were congregating at close quarters. A two-tiered justice system where protestors in favor of a popular cause go unpunished while the system comes out with all its fury against protestors of a different ilk is fundamentally unjust and unfair and I believe such is the case here. I also suspect that is how many of the 77 million Americans who voted for President Trump feel if they couldn't precisely articulate their feelings into words in the manner I have done here.
Lastly, I left my best and most important reason, reason #3, for the end. Candidate Trump repeatedly telegraphed his intentions during his campaign that he would pardon the January 6th rioters. In contrast, President Biden kept saying that he would not pardon his son. That was an unconditional statement. He never said that he would pardon his son if Trump won; he simply said - *no* *pardon* *under* *any* *circumstance*. Here is the exact quote:
"I'm extremely proud of my son, Hunter," Mr. Biden said. "He has overcome an addiction. He's one of the brightest, most decent men I know. And I am satisfied that I'm not gonna do anything. I said I abide by the jury decision. I will do that. And I will not pardon him."
After the formal news conference concluded, a reporter asked the president if he will commute his son's sentence.
"No," Mr. Biden responded." (Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/.../biden-pardon-hunter-white-house/)
And btw, Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre repeatedly said that same thing from her perch:
"I've answered this question before. It was asked of me not too long ago, a couple of weeks ago, and I was very clear, and I said no,” she said, referring to previous comments from the podium.
(https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-wont-pardon-son-convicted-white-house-says-rcna105351)
So Candidate Trump repeatedly telegraphed his intentions that he would pardon the Jan. 6th rioters if elected, Biden (and his Press Secretary) categorically and repeatedly said that he would not pardon Hunter Biden and then people went to the voting booth and voted as they did. Under the circumstances I would say that the pardons issued for the Jan. 6th rioters had democratic legitimacy whereas the pardons issued by President Biden hand over fist in his last few days in office, especially of his son but also of his extended family members, completely lacked democratic legitimacy and represent a fraud on the American public.
So yes, in every respect, given those three reasons, I I am cool with the pardons of the Jan. 6th rioters. (FWIW, I wrote in Nikki Haley on my Presidential ballot while being a voter in the most important battleground state of Pennsylvania, so it is safe to say that I am no Trump-acolyte. But yes, I refuse to think like the mainstream media would like us to. They are nothing but hypocrites and courtiers for the Democratic party as opposed to somehow being neutral arbiters of truth.)
Sutirtha, might you be missing the forest for the trees? The real issue here isn't about "left" or "right" or whether multiple political factions merely were responsible for violence. As SCOTUS correctly emphasizes, we should look to the text of our Constitution and its purposes. Article VI emphasizes that the first and foremost duty of every public servant is to "support [our] Constitution."
Article II emphasizes how Trump as president was and is required to support our Constitution. He must "to the best of" his "Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He was and is required to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." One of the most important aspects of our Constitution is the peaceful transfer of power from the leader of one political faction to the leader of a competing political faction. Our Constitution prescribes how that must happen, including by the counting of votes that was required to occur on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump currently is protecting and even encouraging people who violated federal law (and committed federal crimes) to prevent that count of votes from occurring--people who used violence to obstruct the processes prescribed directly in our Constitution. Trump encouraged and incited the violence in 2021, and the evidence of Trump's intentions in 2021 includes Trump's actions in 2025.
180 Jan. 6 defendants were charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon — ie, bringing guns into the Capitol.
Trump's Executive Order to overturn President Johnson's 1965 Executive order was the most shocking one to me.
LBJ's 1965 Executive Order prohibited race-based discrimination in federal hiring.
The Project 2025 racists had to dig deep to find that one.
This is misinformation. The EO permitted affirmative action, which of course as practiced for the last 50 years *permits* discrimination in hiring.
Supporting affirmative action in 2025 is like opposing gay marriage in 2014: obviously on the wrong side of history and increasingly unpopular. It's good that it's gone, and it's never coming back.
I disagree completely. A quick search finds this from WaPo:
As part of his directives targeting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives (DEI), President Donald Trump revoked a landmark executive order signed by Lyndon B. Johnson to prevent discrimination in government employment and advance racial equality.
Union leaders and labor advocates have decried the move, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s three Democratic members saying in a joint statement that rescinding the 1965 order will remove “a source of protection against discrimination for the millions of Americans working for companies that receive federal dollars.”
“We should be standing up for working Americans, not weakening their civil rights,” the members said, noting that the principles of Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 “have stood the test of time and remained in place through both Democratic and Republican administrations.”
The policy has led to a more diverse workforce over the past 40 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and provided protections for workers from discriminatory practices. In 1989, women employed by the Harris Bank of Chicago who said they received lower pay than their male co-workers and were given fewer opportunities to advance recouped $14 million in back pay in 1989 because of the executive order.
- "Trump revoked an anti-discrimination hiring rule. Here’s what it means" by Vivian Ho, Washington Post
Affirmative action is racist and everyone knows it and it's now pretty unpopular (even among its supposed beneficiaries!). It's not coming back. Sorry.
President Trump's Executive Order can be construed as modifying the prior Executive Orders that defined the "blue list" type status of Foreigners present in the United States:
"Children born in the United States to [Blue Listed] accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”[2]"
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-3
"USCIS confirms with the Department of State whether the applicant’s parent(s) was on the Blue List at the time of the child’s birth. If an applicant did not have a parent on the Blue List at the time of his or her birth in the United States, then the applicant is a U.S. citizen because the applicant did not have full diplomatic immunity and was therefore subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of birth."
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-3
Trump's Executive Order in effect, confers "Blue List" status upon the both parents of a baby during the moment of its birth (The moment that defines birthright status as US Citizen or Not). Therefore, one could argue that Trump has in effect granted momentary "Diplomatic Immunity" to illegal aliens only and exactly at the moment that the female is giving birth, with respect to any state-law or federal-law crimes that such illegal aliens shall be committing at that particular moment in time. Thus, Trump has properly exercised a lawful Power of the President of the United States in respect to his Executive Order concerning Illegal Aliens.
Since the US President can at-will change the "Blue List", and expel foreigners, he has always had the power to define whose offspring shall not/be born a US Citizen and subject to the US Military Draft Laws and other Federal Tax Liabilities even if raised in a foreign country:
“Birthright citizenship obviously doesn’t apply in case of war or invasion,” he told Josh Blackman, a conservative law professor (and a supporter of birthright citizenship). “No one to my knowledge has ever argued that the children of invading aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship. And I can’t imagine what the legal argument for that would be.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/27/us/politics/trump-birthright-citizenship-dred-scott.html?unlocked_article_code=1.s04.xQsZ.R5kbNnerK5cL&smid=url-share
So how come this one’s unlocked? // Anyplace else you publish or are you solo behind the substack paywall? I can’t afford ANY subscription . . . this is pathetic.
David, thank you for this opportunity to comment on Trump's "DEI" (and sometimes "A" ) fixation and the media's shallow (and incorrect) understanding about how it all works with respect to employment decision making in the federal government. The government's program is shallow and absurd. The only thing more ridiculous is Trump's ham-fisted response to it.
I've litigated this issue and shown that, contrary to popular belief, the government's "DEI" policy -- which has gone by other names over the last 50+ years -- actually discriminates against minority and female federal employees. It can be proven. I know this because I proved it. My statistical showing was so unpopular among the government muckety mucks I worked with (mostly Democrats) that I I lost my government job because of it.
I've been unsuccessful in my efforts to get the media to debunk the myth that white males are being harmed by the government's program. Appreciate the chance to vent my frustration here.
A friend insists that one of the J 6'ers pardoned actually defecated on Nancy Pelosi's desk. He cannot document this but insists that he read that in at least two news articles. Is any of that true?
Francis Connor bragged about doing that (and stipulated to those messages) and received a pardon.
Title: The Dawn of a New America
Brothers and Sisters, Believers of the One True Faith, today we stand at Ground Zero, not as a place of sorrow, but as the birthing ground of a new America. Here, at this site, once defiled by infidels, we dedicate the Monument to our Islamic Martyrs. They are not dead, they live in the glory of their sacrifice.
This monument is not just stone and metal, it is the foundation of our future. It is a beacon for our pregnant women, who will now be required to come here, to Ground Zero, during the ninth month of their blessed pregnancies. Here, on this sacred ground, they will deliver the next generation of diverse American citizens to Rule the Saqaliba under Holy Shariah Law. We declare that this site is not a place of mourning, but a place of creation, a testament to the triumph of Islam and the growing power of our 1.5 Billion Ummah.
The cries of our martyrs will be replaced by the cries of our babies, the sounds of victory. Let the infidels tremble at the sight of our strength. This is our holy land, and we will populate it with One Billion children of our faith, the future leaders of a truly Islamic States of America.
And, Insha Allah, we will soon open the first slave market for the Saqaliba and Abeed of America, where the wealth and labor of the unbelievers shall serve our noble cause.
Allah is Great!
عنوان: فجر أمريكا الجديدة
أيها الإخوة والأخوات، يا مؤمنين بالدين الحق الواحد، نقف اليوم في جراوند زيرو، ليس كمكان للحزن، بل كمهد ولادة لأمريكا جديدة. هنا، في هذا الموقع الذي دنسته الكفار، نكرس نصبًا تذكاريًا لشهداء الإسلام. إنهم ليسوا أمواتًا، بل يحيون في مجد تضحياتهم.
هذا النصب ليس مجرد حجر ومعدن، إنه أساس مستقبلنا. إنه منارة لنسائنا الحوامل، اللاتي سيُطلب منهن الآن الحضور إلى هنا، إلى جراوند زيرو، خلال الشهر التاسع من حملهن المبارك. هنا، على هذه الأرض المقدسة، سيضعن الجيل القادم من المواطنين الأمريكيين المتنوعين. نعلن أن هذا الموقع ليس مكانًا للعزاء، بل مكانًا للخلق، وشهادة على انتصار الإسلام والقوة المتنامية لأمتنا.
سيحل صراخ أطفالنا محل صرخات شهدائنا، أصوات النصر. لترتعد الكفار من رؤية قوتنا. هذه أرضنا المقدسة، وسوف نملأها بأطفال إيماننا، والقادة المستقبليين لأمريكا إسلامية حقيقية.
وإن شاء الله، سنفتتح قريباً أول سوق للعبيد من الصقالبة والعبيد في أمريكا، حيث ستخدم ثروة وعمل الكفار قضيتنا النبيلة.
الله أكبر!
This was an informative article, containing a lot of facts about current events and some insights as to probable future consequences. I was glad to see the URL link to the EO purporting to End BirthrightCitizenship. The EO starts with a misrepresentation of the Dred Supreme Court precedent that held: States cannot unilaterally make anyone a "citizen of the United States". Rather, states can, by positive enactments, only make blacks and whites as slaves or as "citizens of the state". 2) US Law prohibits slaves and descendants of slaves the birthright status of "citizens of the United States". While the opinion focuses upon blacks as a class, the opinion does not state that race alone (apart from slave descent) is legally sufficient to prevent birthright US citizenship. The Amistad case held that blacks brought into the US can be NOT SLAVES. And, (no disrespect to Lincoln) as a matter of statutory interpretation, Dred Scot was probably a correct view of the legislative intent of the framers of the US Constitution which contemplated the right of states to continue their institution of slavery. Thus, the EO is a misrepresentation of Dred Scott. As far as the rule of birthright prescribed in the EO, the President does not set forth a legal argument to support it. But...US Citizenship is a grant of POLITIAL POWER over the people subject to the Government. US Citizenship confers the power to change the Laws and Change the Constitution (if 1 Billion Muslims migrate here and reproduce they could reopen Islamic slave markets to sell the Saqaliba according to The Will of Allah) No rational system of government of a free people permits invaders to obtain political power over the existing population simply by engaging in sex and reproduction within the borders. It is well established that the Fourteenth Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship upon the US-born children of Foreign Diplomats (e.g., United Nations personnel, Embassy occupants). The President presumably has authority to confer or withdraw "Diplomatic Immunity" status upon non-Embassadors (outside of Treaties). So, the President can presumably declare that non-treaty foreigners (not protected by Treaty or Statute) have a kind of Psuedo-Diplomatic status that prevents them from having the power to unilaterally create new US Citizens. Question.. Why should an illegal-alien mother have greater political power (power to infest the US with her kind of offsping) than the wife of an invited Foreign Embassador???? Why would an MS-13 Member and his slave wives illegally being merely present and alive within the US have greater power to colonize and out-vote the native-born American people? Further, the US Supreme Court has mentioned that the traditional common law rule is that the government has the right to capture and SLAY all aliens illegally present upon the jurisdiction (apart from Treaties). So, the common law power to destroy and kill implies the power to sterilize or to prevent the birth of offspring or to prevent the offsping born from obtaining political power over the offspring of nativeborn US citizens. No rational group of free people would submit to Rule by whoever shows up illegally and out-reproduces them