RIGHT SPEAK: Dear Justice Roberts: The ‘Same Constitution’ Would Never Authorize Anchor Babies; If SCOTUS Upholds ‘Birthright Citizenship,’ It Will Do So At Its Own Peril

Dear Justice Roberts: The ‘Same Constitution’ Would Never Authorize Anchor Babies:

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ “same Constitution” line during Wednesday’s oral arguments over birthright citizenship at first sounded like a defense of originalism. But in fact, it was the exact opposite.
The high court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging the president’s 2025 executive order restricting birthright citizenship. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, arguing for the administration, pointed out that the world that existed when the 14th Amendment was ratified is not the world that currently exists. “Eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who is a U.S. citizen,” Sauer pointed out.

Roberts responded with what was seemingly an attempt to posture himself as a principled originalist, saying that while it may be a “new world, it’s the same Constitution.” His response met with adoration across the spectrum.

The Cato Institute’s Thomas Berry said Roberts’ line was the “line of the morning.”

“That really does sum up why the government’s policy-based arguments had no bearing on the constitutional question. Today’s oral argument focused on the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, which is the correct approach.”

Michigan’s Ottawa County GOP said, “It’s a tough argument our side is making … Suddenly, the conservative position is that we’re no longer originalists? The Solicitor General should not have said, ‘It’s a new world.’ Roberts: ‘It’s the same Constitution.’ We cannot expect a majority, originalist court to suddenly change on a dime.”

Reason reporter Billy Binion lauded the line as his “favorite Supreme Court exchange in recent memory.” “Into my veins,” he added.

Adam Cochran called Roberts’ one-liner “fantastic” and said it shows Roberts is “capable of having a spine.”

But the idea that the “same Constitution” would grant birthright citizenship to children of Third World illegal aliens or patrons of birth tourism companies is not originalist. In fact, it’s the opposite. --->READ MORE HERE

NBC NEWS/YOUTUBE

If SCOTUS Upholds ‘Birthright Citizenship,’ It Will Do So At Its Own Peril:

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on the Trump administration’s challenge to the decades-long practice of interpreting the 14th Amendment to allow foreigners to obtain American citizenship simply by being born within the boundaries of the country. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this view, allowing any foreigner circumstantially (or intentionally) born on U.S. soil to be automatically adopted into the Union as a citizen, it will mean the end of actual American citizens taking the high court seriously.

As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to black people and freed slaves after the Civil War. Making the point further, Thomas asked, “How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer noted that there was very little, if any, which suggests that the intent of the 14th Amendment was never to be the international migration boondoggle it has become.

While Thomas appeared to recognize that reality, it was difficult to tell where the rest of the court stood on the issue at times — except for the other reliable conservative, Justice Samuel Alito.

But if the justices harbor any consideration of keeping the 14th Amendment migration train running by upholding the current bastardization of the amendment, it will signal to the American people the illegitimacy of even the highest legal authority in the land, ostensibly with a 6-3 conservative majority.

A SCOTUS decision to uphold birthright citizenship as currently applied would communicate that it means to follow in the footsteps of successive presidential administrations and Congresses, selling Americans’ jobs, land, and promises of freedom to the highest bidder, or simply giving them away to foreigners who cross the border illegally. Whereas many view the head of the judicial branch as a safeguard, upholding the Constitution when the executive branch and Congress overstep their bounds, a majority decision affirming unbounded birthright citizenship would suggest they too have no regard for the people who have a right to be here, and whose futures depend on the end of mass migration. --->READ MORE HERE