1 Trending: Don’t Ever Forget The Lies The Media Told To Protect Fauci And Biden

2 Trending: Fauci’s Diaries Are A Media Scandal — That’s Why The Media Aren’t Reporting On Them Fairly

3 Trending: Tennessee Needs To Keep Kids Off Phones During The Entire School Day

4 Trending: Catholic Nuns Take On New York’s ‘Coercive’ Physician-Assisted Suicide Law In Court

White House, Congress Need To Assert Their Dominance Over Supreme Court On Birthplace Citizenship

The Supreme Court was comfortable overturning an executive order, but if the White House and Congress passed legislation, it would be two branches against one.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court dealt an enormous blow to American sovereignty and civilization when it decided that any random person born on U.S. soil had the full benefits of citizenship, but many in the conservative movement do not view the high court’s betrayal as the end of the road for eliminating so-called “birthright citizenship.”

Chief among those conservatives is John Eastman, Director of the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, who spoke optimistically about the road ahead during an event on Capitol Hill concerned with the next steps after the disappointing defeat in Trump v. Barbara.

“I don’t think it was a loss at all. Yes, we lost 5-4 on the constitutional question, but if you think about where we were just a few years ago, I mean, almost uniformly everybody said, ‘This is settled by the Constitution — the only way you can change this is a constitutional amendment,'” Eastman said. “There were a lot of people that thought … that it would end 9-0.”

Barbara started as a challenge to an executive order from President Donald Trump interpreting the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause not to include any foreigner who happens to give birth in America, but Eastman noted that the initial challenges to that order show just how universally judges accepted the incorrect notion of birthplace citizenship.

Eastman, who won an award at the event for his foundational work since the 1990s making legal arguments against birthplace citizenship, noted how the first case to challenge the order actually saw the judge threaten lawyers defending Trump’s order with sanctions and a referral for discipline.

Recalling the 5-4 opinion at the high court again, Eastman said, “think about how far we have moved the discussion, not just not just in the legal community, but nationwide in just a relatively few short years.”

Just because the Supreme Court decided this case now, with its current makeup, does not mean that the issue will take 50-plus years to overturn, as with other extremely harmful decisions like Roe v. Wade, many at the event noted. In fact, some think that this issue can be resolved rather quickly if conservatives are creative enough about how to line up the next challenge for the court to review.

“This is not like Griswold in terms of the violence done to the law. I don’t see this is going to spawn a series of precedents that’s going to erode our republic, like Griswold led to Roe and led to Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell,” Roger Severino, Vice President of Economic and Domestic Policy at the Heritage Foundation, said. “I just don’t see that sort of same progression because it was an originalist debate, which is a victory in itself.”

Invaders Have No Right To Citizenship

For Iowa Solicitor General Eric........

© The Federalist