1 Trending: WaPo Thinks SCOTUS Upholding The Constitution Is A Bad Thing

2 Trending: Young Adults’ Real Crisis Isn’t Affordability — It’s Lifestyle Expectation Inflation

3 Trending: America’s 250th Anniversary Is The Perfect Time To Resurrect Our Slain Statues

4 Trending: Here’s How Sotomayor And Jackson’s Temper Tantrums Are Causing Headaches For Kagan

A Supreme Court That Doesn’t Stop Birthplace Citizenship Isn’t Originalist

Originalism counts for little if justices can brush aside the historical evidence because it is inconvenient.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a landmark case asking whether the 14th Amendment imparts “birthright citizenship” to children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. It’s a legal question of existential importance, and the answer will determine whether the American people control their destiny or whether their destiny will be surrendered to the U.S.-born children of foreigners who have no enduring connection to our country or are present in defiance of our laws.

The case turns on the meaning of one sentence in the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The framers did not create mass citizenship based solely on birthplace. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is key. And while at first blush the phrase’s meaning may appear........

© The Federalist