This is a total disaster for America..

Supreme Court appears poised to strike down Trump's executive order that ends birthright citizenship for illegal aliens on the Fourth Amendment. I'm going to be honest, if if the Supreme Court strikes it down, we need a new Supreme Court. We do. Like, this is insane. Like, he should Andrew Jackson their ass. The fact, the idea that you can have two [ __ ] illegals that come over and have a kid here and that kid is defaulted into America. Get the [ __ ] out of here. Like, are you kidding me? That's a joke. Take the court. Yeah, exactly. Like, it's insane. Like, there's no Is this in the best interest of America? I don't [ __ ] think so. Absolutely not. I I'll read some of the stuff about it, but um yeah, I'm totally out on it because again, like if you have people, this is the issue is that you have people that maliciously take advantage of positions of power and then they use them to achieve political goals. They're not using the positions in the Supreme Court and looking at what the best for what the best thing for America is. They're not looking at what is the intention of the framers of the Constitution. They're not looking at what keeps the country safe. They're trying to use their political ideology and then force it into the law. That's what they're doing. And I don't think anybody should put up with this. Let's listen to this. Here we go. Cani Brown Jackson. Oh boy. Reliance. What do we do with I mean that's a debate and it's a discussion very valid. But then we have a subsequent debate between Fezington and Wade where the same concept comes up and it becomes clear, at least from Senator Wade's perspective. See, this is the problem. They're thinking about uh [ __ ] president. Maybe you should make a decision that's unprecedented and say, "You know what? It's a bad idea to have a bunch of illegals, an entire industry in China that's built around having kids and maliciously taking advantage of our laws. Maybe we should think about this in a direct way rather than try to create all these parallels and abstractions. Look at what's actually happening. People get their [ __ ] people get their head in the [ __ ] clouds and they forget and their feet aren't on the ground. That's what happens is that they're not living in reality. They're not thinking about this in any sort of a meaningful way. They're talking about ideology. They're talking about legal precedent. What the [ __ ] is any of that? These are ideas. They're not real. The reality is that you have a bunch of [ __ ] people from the from not just not the Middle East, but partially from there, too. But from South America and Asia, they're coming over here, spawning kids here, and then taking advantage of our systems. That's it. That's Congress's job, not the judicial. Well, it shouldn't happen. I don't care whose job it is. It shouldn't happen. And also like, oh, this somebody else's job. I I'm sorry, but an argument to bureaucracy is not strong for me. I don't care about an argument to bureaucracy. Oh, but this is what the bureaucratic process says. Well, then change it. Change it, dumbass. If you have a system that works that way, then maybe it's a bad system. If that um that's wrong. So, Sen Fezzendon, and I'm not sure whether these are senators. I apologize. Fezendon says, "Suppose a person is born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country." Wade responds, "The senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen." I know that is so in one instance in the case of the children of foreign minister. See, this is the type of stupid like intellectualism that is actually the lowest IQ version of any sort of discussion. This woman is trying to paraphrase and reframe a debate from the 1800s as a reason for why something should happen today. We're not talking about like the entire world, everybody that was alive is dead now. Everybody then is dead. All of probably their kids are dead. This is a new world. I don't want to hear about what the [ __ ] they said back then. it as this is some kind of an argument by using their their vocabulary and then applying it to today. It's outrageous. Bro, please clarify. Anchor babies ban idea should be retroactive. If yes, what time range? I'd say at least 5 years. I'd retroactively remove them from 5 years ago. At least from the Biden era, right? I mean, cuz that was a huge problem. So, like you don't want to have people that basically took advantage of Biden's open borders and then they had a kid a kid here, right? 2020, maybe 25 years, 50 years. I mean, I'm open to debate about that, but I'd say at least five, right? And I'd even be more willing to say like probably 18 and under or at least like under 18s. But, uh, and even if somebody said no retroactive, just remove it. That I would be fine with that. I'd be happy with that. Who reside near the United States what my opinion is, etc., etc. So it appears as though in that true but we're built on legal precedent preferable because we lose the second amendment to the left with the same argument. You lose the second amendment to the left. Well no absolutely not. You don't lose the second amendment to the left. Do you really think that the reason why we have the right to bear arms is purely because of the second amendment or is it cultural? The reality is that there is a logical, rational, reasonable, intelligent justification for why somebody has a gun. That's the reason why like you can easily logically create a conclusion that says people especially like a woman for example like if you're a 5'3 woman and you're 120 lb the probability that you can uh you know overpower and stop a man that's 200 lb and 6'1 is 0%. It is it's 0%. It's not going to happen. like the man is going to win every single time unless there's some sort of like crazy disparity. He's like 90 years old and he's blind. Overwhelmingly, the woman's going to lose. You need to have a gun. And so, you can make a logical, rational argument for why people should be allowed to own guns. And you don't need the Second Amendment for that. Now, the Second Amendment makes it stronger and it creates a tradition for it, but you don't need that. The difference is that they need this precedent because there is no logical conclusion that can allow you to come to the the the the argument that it's a good idea that two illegals should be able to come here and have a kid and that the kid's a citizen. There's no argument for that. Absolutely zero change. At least Senator Wade believed that the English common law understanding of what it means. There's also we'll get somebody sorry I paused again. I want to respond one more. Look at the new Virginia gun laws. There's no precedent on infringement. So, they're allowing themselves to infringe on gun laws, but there is a precedent on infringement. It's called the Second Amendment. So, that that's the entire argument you're making immediately falls apart by by your own argument. You're saying that well, we need the Second Amendment. We need to listen to president. And then you say that, well, looking in Virginia, they're not listening to pre there is no president. There is a president. It's called the Constitution. And so, doesn't that prove that it doesn't matter? They don't give a [ __ ] about this. They don't care about the rules. So, to the extent that you're playing, again, I've said this before, if you're playing chess against somebody and they think that every single pawn that they have has the same movement rights as a queen, and you let their moves uh play out and you let that work, that person will beat you. That person's gonna beat you every single time. Don't play on an uneven playing field. der it's insane um to have allegiance to be a temporary person on the soil uh was what was being adopted. Yeah, it that cont or that exchange strongly supports us if you look at it in context. Senator Wade has introduced a version that says only birth on US soil and doesn't have any allegiance or jurisdictional uh uh element to it. And so Senator Fessendin stands up and says, "Well, that can't be right because, you know, obviously what about the children of temporary visitors?" It has this, you know, it's another one of these statements that has this appeal to a background understanding that he he's right about this is that the implication of that question is that it's not referring to people that are non-citizens. That that is the implication of that follow-up question because you why would you need to draw a distinction if that distinction was already understood? Well, you wouldn't need to do that. He's completely right about this. So, uh, yeah, early version of chat GP did not cheat. That's our cheat later on version. So, I don't know about that. And I just got timed out twice for highlighting my message twice. For highlighting my message twice, you're going to get timed out again. Yeah, I don't I don't like I don't like the fact that you're tagging me and you're complaining. I I don't like that. OH, BRO, I DON'T LIKE THIS GUY. YEAH, we might have to ban him. I don't know about that. Second Amendment's useless. Anybody garments way too strong to overthrow? if it was tyrannical. Well, that's not really what's going to happen. So, this I'm going to be honest. She is so [ __ ] [ __ ] We need to find a way to get her taken off the Supreme Court. This is insane. Listen to this. What do we do with I mean, that's a same concept I was like wait a minute this sounds like the other one on being born in whatever country on being born in whatever country you're from. That's what everybody recognizes. But you also have local allegiance when you are on the soil of this other other sovereign. And what a stupid [ __ ] Did the people flying the planes into the Twin Towers on 911 have allegiance to America because they were on American soil? How can you be so [ __ ] [ __ ] Do we have allegiance to Afghanistan whenever we're invading Afghanistan? I I This is Oh my god. We got to get rid of her. Holy [ __ ] And I was thinking, you know, I'm I'm I a US citizen am visiting Japan. Yeah. And what it means I'm Japanese now. Is that, you know, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, um the the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. Um it's allegiance meaning, can they control you as a matter? Allegiance is control. So wait a minute. So are the people that were held are the the prisoners of war from October 7th, are they allied with Hamas now? Oh my god. It's there there's literally like is Johnny Somali allied with Korea? Is Vitali allied with the Philippines? Is uh [ __ ] uh what's his name? Uh not Bolsinaro, the other the one Maduro. Is Maduro allied with America now because he's in American jail? Like this is this is the most [ __ ] argument that you could ever make that is instantly disproven by just thinking for 3 seconds about this. How the [ __ ] did she become a Supreme Court justice? Oh, we we need to there's got to be a way to get rid of Supreme Court justices, right? We need to have a some way. Send her back to McDonald's. You need to go and retire. Can we just pay her her salary and you just go home and don't say anything ever again? Holy [ __ ] A DEI hire? I wouldn't be surprised. I I can't find any other way to explain it. This is the most [ __ ] stupid argument that you could ever have. Oh my god. Wow. Remember, she wouldn't define a woman. I We got to get rid of her. We do. I I don't I don't know who we can get in like I I don't know who we can get in as a Supreme Court justice that's based enough. I really don't know. [ __ ] Like I I just I'll go Yeah. Ted Cruz. See, that would be my first guy. But the issue is that Ted Cruz is too close to Israel. That fi that's makes me uncomfortable. And he's also too much of a religious guy. I I'm uncomfortable because of that. Some people are saying Clarence so we get Clarence Thomas, too. Okay. Okay. And then then maybe we can get rid of somebody else and we can get Clarence Thomas 3. Okay. I like I like this. See, now now we're now we're going in the right direction of law. I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to uh you know under Japanese law go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there's this relationship based on even though I'm a temporary so so so a foreign terrorist that comes into the United States to blow up a building, he can rely on us to arrest him and that means that he's that he he's he's allied with the United State. Oh my god. ary traveler. I'm just on vacation in Japan. I'm still locally owing allegiance in that sense. Is that the right way to think about it? And if if so, no. No, it's not. Next question. No. Doesn't that explain why both temporary? Isn't that the right way? And if so, doesn't that Okay. So, you're you're basically talking past the premise. You're you're you're saying, "Well, is this the way to look at it?" Well, let's assume it is. Well, let's let me build an entire ideology off of this uh residents and undocumented people would have that kind of dangerous allegiance just by virtue of being in the United States. That's absolutely right, Justice Jackson. And on being born in whatever deport to get them out, put them in jail. You got to do something about this. This is crazy. Right. These people, they're they're co-opting the largest and most important court inside of America to push a basically radical takeover of the country. She's saying that any person that comes here is in one way or another by using a legal obuscation and really just a a a brain deadad misunderstanding uh that that person now has allegiance to America. Oh my god. Charge him with treason. I know. I know. I I Listen, guys. I This is I I I want it. I do. I want it, but it's not going to happen. At least not anytime soon. And uh we've got to wait. We've got That's like four presidents from now. And that's a best case scenario. That's four presidents from now. She's equating criminal jurisdiction with sovereign jurisdiction. Well, again, it it's just again it's not even about like people think about this in terms of like, oh, well, you look at these terminologies. No, it's simple. If you have people coming over here that are having kids and then they're defaulting their kid a a citizenship, this is obviously a manipulation. It's obviously an abuse. And I think that everybody should realize this. Okay, let's listen to the next one. Here we go. Like, you guys know how I feel about this stuff, right? This is a big day for me. All right. This is a very big day for me and I am so [ __ ] Oh my I'm so mad that this has not it it it's this should be a 90 decision. It should be a 90 decision and the only question would be how retroactive should we make this? That should be the only point of contention at all. uh not subject to any foreign power is pretty straightforward. So let me give you these examples. Um a boy is born here to an Iranian father who has entered the country illegally. That boy is automatically an Iranian national at birth and he has a duty to provide military service to the Iranian government. Is he not subject to any foreign power? not within the meaning of the 1866 act. Uh justice 1866 act see these are people whose mind is consumed by a process and a bureaucracy rather than thinking about this rationally at all. There are so many people whose thinking process is completely defined by external variables. There is no actual internal evaluation that is occurring at all. Think about it for 3 seconds. Okay, so somebody has a kid here and then the kid is legally obligated to help Iran and then Iran says to blow up America. Okay, well that sounds like it's a really bad idea. That sounds really bad. They're all in on it, man. It's about votes. It is. Yeah. And and this is again what I'm saying is that the reason why they're fighting so hard for this is because this is the main thing that if they lose this, they lose their basically their silver bullet to effectively flood the country with foreigners because this is the strategy that they use is that they open the borders and then they allow people to come over and then have kids here. the kids get defaulted citizenship citizenship. Then they manipulate the public by saying, "Well, you can't separate families." Well, yeah, I think you're right. Let's send them all back. But let's say, you know, again, so it's it's all it's all built into this narrative. That's it. They want white to become a minority. They do. They do. And I I think that they want to build an anti-white racial coalition to achieve that goal. I think that's true. Like, think about the idea of birth tourism. If this is a video game, it would have been patched out decades ago. It's an obvious exploit. Everybody knows it. And that's clear from WKR and it's clear from the debates. What the framers meant by the phrase not subject to any foreign power was referring I'm sure that Thomas Jefferson when he was writing the Constitution said, "You know what I want? I want a Chinese woman to fly over here on an airplane and have a baby." And that baby is defaulted American citizenship. That's what Thomas Jefferson wanted for sure, guys. Oh yeah, definitely. It can't even speak [ __ ] English. Holy [ __ ] This is unbelievable. All right. So, somebody says, "Let me get straight. I'll pull you up. Do you think that the system we have is good? It's very simple. Do you think it's good or not? Bad tech. 160 years changes nothing. Well, I I I I feel like it does, by the way. And not only does it change not only does it not change nothing, it changes everything. 160 years ago, everybody that was alive is dead now. That's it. They're all dead. We live in a completely different world. Let me hear it. What Jefferson meant? What leftists used for the Second Amendment? So, what do you think? What what do you think Thomas Jefferson wanted a Chinese woman or two Mexicans to illegally cross the border and have a kid here and then have an anchor baby? Do you think that's what Thomas Jefferson wanted when he was framing the Constitution? Do you think that's what the uh what the Constitution was for? Just I mean do do you think that or not? Hey, terrorist if it takes six weeks. No. Founding fires wanted us to have 50 round magazines. That's what leftists say. Yeah, but they didn't have computers either. So, we're reframing it. So, like I can make an argument for why you should be able to have a 50 round magazine. You can like you can make see you're you're right, but the problem is that that argument I think can also be made from a logical and a rational perspective as well. And also, the founding fathers never said anything about 50 round magazine, obviously. Or machine gun. Yes. Or a computer. Do you really think that the constitution is the main reason why they're not able to do that? They're making laws against guns. An old law isn't bad because it's old. It's like a squatter. It's old and bad, but it's not bad because it's old. That's a good argument. I think I have to agree with you on that. I will like I I think that's a good point. But like and again like yeah you you bring up a good point there. You're right is that something isn't bad categorically because it's old. And I think that by me saying that I think that like definitely yeah I could see where you're coming from here. But I feel like very clearly the world has evolved in a way that obviously the way that people have kids here and they come over and have kids here is totally different than what happened back then. Answer your question. Yeah. And also like okay let let's get back that's a good point. Yeah. And um so what about do you think Thomas Jefferson you mean a bad uh so I don't mean that a bad take it was an example. No it's fine. It's fine. That's okay. Like uh we we'll move on. But um anyway no I think he's he's right. He's right about that. And uh in this case you have to call it outdated rather than just old. I think that's a great point. Yeah. It's not old. It's outdated. It has been totally outdated. And I think that we need a new version of looking at it nowadays. Yeah, he he's right. That's a good point that he's bringing up. It's a it's a it's a small nuance, but I think it's relevant. The ambassador exception. If it meant what the government contends, basically not a subject of any foreign power, that you were that another country considers you a senanguinous citizen, then lawful per permanent residents, all foreign nationals. ordinary public ordinary public meaning of that would certainly uh encompass that boy would it not? Justice Leto, if you think that the language of the 1866 act was ambiguous, as Wong Kim Mark says, the shift to the language of the 14th amendment, which is the operative text, certainly clears up any ambiguity. What I said about uh a boy born to an Iranian father is true of children born here to parents who were nationals of other countries. Yes, if I'm correct, it's true to a child who's born here to Russian parents. It's true to a child who's born here to Mexican parents. They're automatically citizens or nationals of those countries and have a duty of uh of military service. It sure seems like that's a that makes them subject to a foreign power. But again, Justice Leato, that would have meant that the children three-fifth vote is also outdated. So, we changed it. Yeah, we've outd we've changed a lot of things in the constitution of Irish, Italian, and um other immigrants. This is another deliberate reframing and a deliberate misunderstanding whenever the Irish and Italian and the immigrants like why would we make a decision for what should happen now based off of what happened 150 years ago which won Mark refers to in the debate the framers refer to would not have been citizens either because if the only test is whether that US-born child why would you make a decision on something that happened 150 years ago this is [ __ ] is considered a citizen by another country under their eenanguinous laws, then no foreign nationals children would well in all of those cases the parents could be naturalized and then the children would be derivatively nationalized. You can't base decisions like that whenever we effectively had totally open borders and anybody could come to Like it was a fundamentally different country back then. naturalized when the uh when the parents were naturalized. Yeah. Why are foreigners allowed to change laws? Well, this is what's happened is you have groups like the ACLU that have been taken over by effectively uh foreign influences and people seeking to subvert the United States and they're trying to co-op these different organizations so they can use them as vehicles for them to push their agenda. That's what's happening. The thing is back then you needed mass immigration to grow the country but now the country is populated doesn't need it anymore. Well, the entire framing of this conversation is wrong. The idea that we should be basing our decisions around the way that we are interpreting something that was said 150 years ago is [ __ ] We should look at what the best option is right now. And our cup's going viral. Oh, let me see this one. I haven't seen this one yet. Where is it? Oh god. Okay. And of course it doesn't work. What a surprise. This turns on. All right. Talking about changes for 30 years and Supreme Court has constantly been opposition. Truthfully, I don't know how it didn't happen after 9/11. 2011 was another big year trying to push it. Well, then I I think they should just ignore the court. I do. I mean, they're obviously working against America's best interest. They are like, this is crazy. If if they don't go through with this, Trump should just Andrew Jackson them. Your view of this turns on what the status of the parents are. Um, and not the child as would the born in the United States view of it. Um, what how can you help us? Wait, what? Let me listen to this again. status of the parents are. Um and not the child as would the born in the United States view of it. Um what how can you help us understand why we wouldn't expect to see a mention of parents in the text of this amendment? I think it was oh my god intentionally misunderstanding something written 150 years ago. This is oh my [ __ ] god. literally a [ __ ] I know it is embarrassing. I have a question I think matters to this discussion when the constitution was written. Did they have immigration issues like today? No, they didn't. It was a totally different country, completely different world. Of course not. Well understood that for example children cannot you know newborns cannot form doicile. So it follow every 19th century that assumes doicile is in the test. And I'm asking you, how do we know that Congress did adopt the test that you say it adopted? Yeah. When you're looking at 19th century conceptions of allegiance, the notion that the allegiance, again, we say doicile is instantiating the concept of allegiance for aliens as opposed to citizen. All of that, the 19th century understands the newborns doicile, its allegiance, follows the allegiance of the parents. And I point out that their theory relies on parental allegiance as well because they recognize the exceptions for, you know, hostile invading armies, for tribal Indians, for ambassadors. Again, the child's allegiance status even on their view. It's it's obvious. It is. And uh you can't establish legal permanent doicile somewhere where you're illegally present and subject to removal at any time. Yeah, it's insane, man. Woman through our example singly doing more to dismantle the tyranny of diversity hires of any other person in history. Thank you. That's probably true. Holy [ __ ] How can you be that incompetent? Wow. And uh yeah, this is crazy. It's a crazy uh a person can achieve such a high powerful position with such a low IQ and to push ill intent towards other fellow citizens. Well, it's because some people are afraid to call it out. I think that's the reason why and that's the reason why I call it out. That's the reason why I say it. I find this to be profoundly um offensive. It is profoundly offensive to me that this is even an open conversation. It is insane. And look at this here. And uh Trump administration must restore the legal status of potentially hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came to the United States through legally through a Biden era pathway. A federal judge ruled on Tuesday. No, he doesn't. [ __ ] that. Just don't do it. Blei, listen to this. Ble didn't save El Salvador because he arrested all the criminals. He saved it because he removed the judges. Communist judges are the sword and shield of the communist revolution here in America. Removing them is everything, bro. There it is. That's it. Just like Napoleon. Just like Napoleon. And you have The thing is that it's so obvious. It is so obvious here. Here's another one. Look at this. This doorbell video shows the moment she's describing. You can hear the engine revving, then the car speed up significantly. We've stopped it before it hits Naomi. The other two kids got out the street. Naomi wasn't quick enough through her little legs. She had eyes on her. She was not unattended. She did not run out in front of no car. That car just Every day I read a story about a judge blocking common sense rules. Imagine how much better our country would be if every day you read a story about a judge being sent to go to jail inside to the same cell in the same prison that they sent a bunch of people to. Imagine how much better our country would be instantaneously. She hit her like she was an animal and kept going until he probably got a phone call to say he hit that baby. Another neighbor didn't want to go on camera but says she saw the whole thing from somewhere in the video. You're watching gunned it down the street. You were on the wrong. They let this clown out on bond of $1,000. Wrong side. This baby play out here every day all day. You on the wrong side. You came over this side, hit the baby. You didn't stop. You kept going. You didn't remain on scene. They had to call you to tell you to come back. So So he killed the kid and he drove off. It hurts because that's a child. She was only 8 years old. Yep. And now she have to lose her life because of a reckless driver. She lost her life because of a reckless judge. And that judge should be held accountable. In a just world, this judge would be tried as an accomplice for the murder. That's what would happen. Could have been my niece. That could have been my little cousin. That could have been anybody. Now, police say the driver of that Chrysler 300 was 23-year-old Khalil Bernie. He is now charged. They take away his license for driving. License revoked. No li They already tried that. And it didn't work. Oh, wait. He didn't have liability insurance. Oh, wow. Insurance, failure to register, and fictitious registration in court today. Oh, so he went and he put Yeah. Day gave him a $1,000 unsecured bond. So, they gave him a $1,000 bond. Was just let out of jail on a $1,000 bond. We don't have to live like this, gentlemen. We don't We don't have to live like this. This is crazy. This is insane that we put up with this [ __ ] $1,000. This is way too low. It shouldn't be a bond. He went and he killed a kid driving around like a nutball when he shouldn't even been driving. You should be lucky he's not getting harvested for his organs. That's what I think. It's outrageous. Why are we putting up with this? I'm waiting for somebody to defend this. Yeah, there's nobody. And uh it's it's insane. Minimum 250K. Yeah. I I mean really like I don't understand this at all. They found another clip of that viral judge. Insane ego. Which one? Oh my god. Wait a minute. This that same loser. Okay. Um those are the overlapping story. This is the same guy that crashed out on the IT uh on the IT worker between the stores outline. Are you wasting my time this morning? No, judge. I mean, we we have an overlapping issue in these two cases. They don't seem to be that overlapping to me. Well, we have the same. You want to go to Jefferson County because you want Jefferson County jury? No, I mean, judge, we're we're the defendants in the case. We're we're we're the plaintiffs. We haven't filed either one of these cases. They filed abatement is denied. Thank you guys. We filed a proposed order but I have one here at the office. Jeff briefly respond. You may not. This hearing is done. She's asking for a second. Deputy remove her from my bench now. Am I asking? No, you may not. This hearing is over. Jesus Christ. These people today. Step away. You're about I'm going to be real. If you crash out like this as a judge, you can't control your emotions. If you can't control your emotions, you shouldn't be able to control other people's fate. It's embarrassing. Like it really like you're compromis Yeah. You're compromised. You can't do it to be cuffed. He wants to have her handcuffed. Jesus Christ. Holy [ __ ] He's He's high estrogen. He He I I honestly I mean, you just listen to the way he talks. You're about to be cuffed. Oh, yeah. Ah. Uhhuh. Yeah, that's right. It's embarrassing that female judge completely calm that psycho actually crashing out in front of her. Yeah. It's just embarrassing for me to see this. Can they appeal to a different judge? Why can he be the one indiscriminately Yeah. Why is he indiscriminately jailing the retards? And it's not me. Yeah, it's not fair, guys. This is [ __ ] And so, uh, I'll go and I'll show you. Here's another one. Here is another one of this happening. Here we go. Let's watch it. I appreciate the legislature for for passing this. But I will just say to my friends in the Florida House of Representatives, I don't think what you've done is enough. Uh, you have the power and you have sufficient numbers in your chamber to impeach this judge. She released a child rapist while out on bail. He raped, tortured, and killed a 5-year-old little girl, Tiffany Baker. Until you start holding these judges accountable, they are going to continue to find ways. Disbarring them isn't enough. It's not enough. Simply losing their job and being uh dishonored is not enough. It's not even the bare minimum to benefit the criminal element. This was an outrage. This was such an easy call to make sure that this guy was put behind bars and this judge refused to do it. knowing the risks and the result has obviously been a tragedy. So, Florida Constitution, we need to go Old Testament with these people. We do. We got to Old Testament these people. Like, they got to go and like bring in the military uh and and just simply arrest them. Like this is crazy. Like you have them there literally letting out child molesters. Like the entire idea like because the the problem is that people think that you shouldn't do that because oh well that's breaking the rules. They're breaking the rules. How the [ __ ] are you supposed to deal with this with people that are controlling the rules that don't use them? How do you deal with this? H how do you can't deal with that? Like there's no there's no way you can get around this. It's an abuse of power. It is. Invests the House of Representatives with the ability uh to bring What's the alternative? Because if they're liable, they won't release anyone else, not even good people. Do you really think that there's no gray area between releasing a child molester and releasing somebody who's a shoplifter from 7-Eleven? Do you really think that there's no no nuance there? Like really impeachment against a circuit judge with twothirds majority. You know, last time I checked, we've got way more than twothirds of Republicans. We need light yagami on these people. I told y'all like it is a mercy to the world that because Death Note came out in 2006. I was 16 in 2006. If I had watched Death Note when I was in high school, I know you might have thought it would be impossible for this to be the case, but I can guarantee you that I would somehow be even more insufferable than I was then. I would have been even worse because even now, I watched I I watched Death Note. I agreed with everything White did. I did. I I completely agree. I He's totally right. ly I think some Democrats would vote to impeach given uh what happened in this case. So like if it was back then oh my god yeah and uh wow really of course I love like yeah 100% like this whole [ __ ] like oh well you know it's just a right to do that. Oh, you know, if he does it, it happened. And so we have even one more. Look at this. Disgraced Minnesota judge just gave a six-month sentence to another Somali fraudster who stole millions. Miss Jama, do you have any comment? Judge Nancy Brazzle said that Zam Zam Jama was one of the least culpable Zam Zam. What is this? Like that's like a convenience store. Jamaa was one of the least said that Zam Zam Jamba was one of the least culpable defendants and she doesn't think that she'll see Jamba back in federal court for another crime. Miss Jama, that's crazy. Wow. And uh yeah, from Star Wars. Yeah. Yeah, it's from Star Wars or something like that. And uh judges are bought and paid for. Well, I think that what happens is that it does look like an AI AI version of her. Um, so the judges I think in some cases are kind of they're doing it for a, you know, a political reason and like they're being paid. I don't think most of them are being paid. I think that they just simply do it because they think it's the right thing to do. And John Roberts said, "It's a new world, but it's the same constitution." Then why do you think that they let you do amendments for it? Like this is really are you kidding me? Response to John Sour saying six billion people are a plane ride away from coming here. Holy [ __ ] [ __ ] dude. This is insane. Oh my god, it makes me so mad. Luigi crashed out on a health CEO for less than that. Health insurance CEO for less than that. Listen. Anyway, let me go back. Look at this. Okay. And let's talk about its applications. So, you know, there are some I I can imagine it being messy on some applications. So, how what would you do with what the common law called foundings? You know, the the thing about this is then you have to adjudicate. If you're looking at parents and if you're looking at parents doicile, then you have to adjudicate both residents and intent to stay. What if you don't know who the parents are? I think I think there are marginal cases. That one I think I mean, don't give them citizenship till you find out. Duh. Like obviously like what the [ __ ] do you mean like I mean it's ob like oh yeah oh well what if you don't know okay well then say to be determined [ __ ] duh like obviously has the benefit of being addressed in 1401f where it talks about yeah yeah yeah but what about the under the constitution it's it's do I mean look there doicile is a constitutional standard in all kinds of other situations well and it's hard diversity jurisdiction personal jurisdiction sorry well yeah and personal jurisdiction I mean 1932 diversity jurisdiction. And the thing is it has to be litigated because it turns on intent. And both if their intent was to come into this country illegally, they shouldn't be rewarded by their kid being a [ __ ] citizen. If their intent is to come here to have a kid to default the kid citizenship, then that is a bad malicious intent and it should not be rewarded. These people are so consumed with the idea of processes that they've lost any sense of ethical accountability. They've lost every sense of rational conclusion drawing. This is insane. I'm so I'm so mad. I'm I'm actually I'm I'm actually so mad about this. The virtue of both you solely and you sanguinis, whichever one you pick, it's a bright line rule. How would it work? How would you adjudicate these cases? You're not going to know at the time of birth for some people whether they have the intent to stay or not, including it doesn't matter if they have the intent to stay, you [ __ ] [ __ ] No, there's no the intent to stay. Like, are they citizens or not? They're not citizens and they shouldn't have a kid here that's a [ __ ] citizen. Like, are you [ __ ] It's it's unbelievable. Oh my god. How is this even a question? What their intent is? Holy [ __ ] Like what? This bureaucracy is so [ __ ] annoy. It drives me crazy. [ __ ] Including US citizens, by the way. I mean, what if you have someone who is living in Norway with, you know, their their husband and family, but is still a US citizen, comes home and has her child here and goes back. Well, then the kid would be a citizen because she's a citizen. Like, what? Well, okay. So, you have a shoplifting law, but what if somebody Okay. Okay. Get this. Okay. But what if somebody buys something, but then they forget to take their bag out of the store and then they come back in and they say, "I forgot to get my bag that I paid for." And then they take it out. Are they shoplifting? You're missing the point. Okay. All right. All right. You're going to get pulled up. you're going to get pulled up. What's the point? Because I I I I'm wait I want to hear arguments for this because there everything that I've heard about this is so [ __ ] that it's astonishing that it even exists. Is that extra edgy today? I am. I I I'm I'm so mad. I've been waiting on this for my whole life and they're messing it up. Drives me crazy. She's just posing multiple angles to the argument to see the answers. Well, I mean, the answer is obvious, right? I mean, if somebody's US citizen that has a kid in America, but they're also in Norway, the kid would obviously be a US citizen. Like, there's not even a question about that. Like, how's that even a question? It's obvious. Everybody knows that. Duh. Of course. How do we know whether the child is a US citizen? Because the parent didn't have an intent to stay. I'd say the intent to stay is wrong. Two points, one practical, one legal. The practical point is under the terms of this executive order, you don't have to because the executive order turns on objectively verifiable things which is immigration status. Are you lawfully present but temporarily present or are do you have an illegal status? So the those kind of like you know taking evidence so to speak on your subjective attempt wouldn't be uh done. And as to the constitutional point, obviously doicile is baked into a lot of constitutional and legal concepts and there there may be situations where facts are determined, but if you look at the guidance, bro, what are you doing, bro? Was RFK not enough? Now you have to bring in two people with five H 5% HP. Number one. Number two, what the [ __ ] are we talking about? What are we doing? the guidance that all the agencies did after this court and CASA said the agency could go forward and issue guidance. The guidance provides I think very very clear objective. Why is intent to stay a stupid argument? If they aren't staying in the USA, they shouldn't get citizenship. No, because even if they want to stay in the United States, they shouldn't get citizenship if they're not if they're not citizens. Duh. So if you if so you're telling me that because two illegals come here and they say I want to stay here. No [ __ ] you want to stay here. You came from Guatemala. I would too if I were you. I get it. So yes, obviously that's the case. It doesn't matter verifiable approaches to to doing this and and so the pra as a practical matter I don't think it's presented by this executive order. Thank you General Justice Jackson. Mhm. Holy [ __ ] man. Holy [ __ ] This is insane. And uh they don't get to get the immigration line just cuz you had a kid. Yeah, exactly. What if it's a US citizen and illegal? Then it's a then it's a US citizen. If one of the parents is a US citizen, then the kid should be a US citizen. If both of the parents are a US citizens, then the kid should be a US citizen. If neither of the parents are US citizens, then the kid should not be a citizen. It's obvious. Yeah, of course. Like that's fair. Yeah, obviously. Oh my god. And and let me go. I'll see if I find this here. And uh where is it? Oh no. I I already saw this before. That was so [ __ ] It It's unbelievable. Okay, let's listen to this. Bas on Chinese media reports, there are 500 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to to to that nation. Imagine thinking it's a good idea that you have a system that has spawned an entire Chinese um industry of people that are flying to your country in bad faith to spawn their kids with citizenship. Like that that's it's obviously there's something wrong with that. Obviously there's something wrong like how can anybody not see there's something wrong with that? Uh, having said all that, you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us? I don't give a [ __ ] about that. Why the [ __ ] would I care about that? Why the [ __ ] So, let me get this straight. Because you can misinterpret something that was written 150 years ago that means that we're not allowed to have a country. Get the [ __ ] out of here. This is such a ridiculous argument. It's insane. I am so [ __ ] sick of this bureaucratic, completely sterile, braindead, disconnected, uh, you know, pseudointellectual [ __ ] that these people keep trying to push when the reality is it it's it's happening. It's actually happening in real life right now. I don't care about what the what your ideological reasoning is for this or what you know this is what a book said that was written 80 years ago. It's outdated. It's gone. Like everybody that was around then is dead. It's a completely different world. Most politicians are retards, man. Most people are retards. That's it. Makes me so [ __ ] mad, man. Makes me so [ __ ] mad. Oh, well, just because there's an obvious exploit and the fact that this obvious exploit exists, like does it Oh my god, bro. Like, I'm just I'm so I'm It's actually crazy how mad I am. It's crazy how mad I am. I think it's uh I justice Clea said in his hamdon descent where they have where like their interpretation has these implications that could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers of this amendment. I think that uh uh uh shows that they've made a mess their interpretation has made a mess of the provision. Well, it certainly wasn't a Yeah, you [ __ ] up problem in the 19th century. Yeah, it wasn't a problem. Oh, wow. Well, well, wait a minute. It wasn't a problem in the 19th century. Thank God. Yeah, probably back then he was in college. That old [ __ ] the another old geriatric [ __ ] is going to dictate to us. Why the [ __ ] Oh, wait a minute. Well, be Well, if you look at what happened in 1885, that means you're not allowed to have a country anymore. Well, it certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century. No, but of course, neither were [ __ ] computers. We're we're in a new world now. As Justice Alita pointed out, we're in a new Yes. where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a a child who's a US citizen. Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution. It is. This stupid old man, this stupid old man is ruining our country. This amazing. It's the same constitution. Number one, that's like foundationally, definitionally, that's wrong. The Constitution is constantly reinterpreted. If you didn't need reinterpretations of the Constitution, why the [ __ ] do we have the Supreme Court? Number one. Number two, the Constitution was written for amendments. You've got to remember the 14th Amendment wasn't written until over everybody that wrote the Constitution was dead when the 14th Amendment was written. It was a hundred years after the Constitution was written. This I it's un I can't believe this. I'm so I'm so [ __ ] mad. As Justice Scalia said, I think in the case that uh Justice Leto was referring to uh uh you've got a constitutional provision that addresses certain evils and it should be extended to reasonably comparable evils. He said that about statuto interpretation. I think the same principle applies here and I think we quote that in our brief. Thank you, Justice Thomas. Anything further? Uh unbelievable to me. Absolutely [ __ ] unbelievable that anybody is putting up with this. Okay, here's another one. All right. uh not subject to any foreign power. Oh, we saw this one. Never mind. I already saw that before. Let me go back and see if I can find any more of these two. But yeah, I I am extremely opinionated about this. I am very very upset about this. The Constitution says that a woman didn't have rights when the Constitution was written. It didn't have women in it. Should we get rid of women's rights? Yeah, exactly. Like the idea that because the Constitution says this means that it's a good thing and this is what the rules should be is insane. And also you can just reinterpret it in a different way. I mean obviously am I wrong that the amendments expand the subject and doesn't narrow them? Well I don't know what you mean by that. Depends on what you mean by expanding and what does that mean? Second amendment says uh stay the same even though the guns keep changing. Listen like here's the thing is that there's obviously a very big difference between somebody being able to, you know, buy a [ __ ] aircraft carrier versus be being able to have a gun for home defense, right? I mean everybody can see and understand that. But this is again what I was saying about the deliberate misunderstandings. The deliberate intentional repeated misunderstandings. And oh, here we go. Let's take a look at this. Let's start here with some examples of some of the types of individuals we could be talking about. Like Juan Carlos Valencia Gonzalez. Now Juan Carlos Valencia Gonzalez was born in Santa Ana, California in 1984. His parents were from Mexico. He happens to also be the stepson of Elmeno, the leader of the Halisco New Generation Cartel. And now he is reportedly leading that very same cartel. And here's the thing. He is a United States citizen by birth. And it doesn't stop there. Reports of foreign wealth being used to manipulate the system. One Chinese billionaire reportedly has more than 100 USborn children through surrogacy. The idea build a future family and a business succession plan. Some clients, by the way, how do you not see this and think it's an exploit? How do you not see really? Like, what the [ __ ] are we doing? Can you believe this? It sounds like an expo. Like look at look at this. It's insane. Request up to 100 babies via multiple surrogacies. It can cost as much as $200,000. And why would they do that? Because babies born here are automatically US citizens. That's right. Also, if I was Chinese, I'd do it. I'd do it. Like if I was Chinese and like you know my wife was going to have a kid and I could fly her to America and then have the kid in America, I'd do it. It's a good idea. It's a great idea. ABC, right? Yep. ABC. Always be cheating. It's a phenomenal idea. Who wouldn't? Is illegal in China. Nearly 41% of international surrogate parents in the United States are Chinese. Another coincidence, I'm sure. To be fair, the Elmento stepson is American. Well, look, if his parents are American, like I mean again, we have plenty of criminals here. Like I think that argument is weak too, by the way. I do. I think if his parents were American citizens, then you know him being like, "Look, I mean, yeah, he's the guy's son or whatever." Like, that's what happens. Like, just cuz your dad's an [ __ ] doesn't mean it's your fault. So, why is this such a debate? Look around the world. It's a debate because they want to overrun the country with foreigners and then replace people and then vote for racial solidarity. That's the reason why it's a debate. That's the reason why they're doing it. That's why they're pushing it. Much of Europe has restricted birthright citizenship. Asia basically ended it. The United States still. So wait a minute. China, it's restricted, but over here it's not. Those [ __ ] So those [ __ ] come over here and they do this to us, but we can't do that over there. Yeah. I you know why? Maybe because they realized it was a problem. That's crazy. Few countries around the world that sits as an outlier. Yep. So, South Africa, Sweden, Finland, the UK, Ireland, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Australia. Oh my god. Makes me so [ __ ] mad for me to see this, man. It really does. And uh I don't even know what to say. It's just so outrageous, ridiculous, unfair. And look at this here. Illegal immigrant who attacks someone in Japan gets deported. I don't want to go back. I don't want to go back. Immigration officer, it doesn't matter. We're taking you. You're lucky we even have a plane. We're taking you no matter what. Man, ma'am, this how it should be done. You're goddamn right. It's how it definitely is how it should be done. Just send it back on a raft. Yeah. Do you agree? If this uh Supreme Court can't recognize surrogate birthright citizenship being an exploit, it shouldn't be. Yeah. Uh I I think that if the Supreme Court is not able to because the Supreme Court like fundamentally every piece of government should be working in the best interest of American citizens like and this is downstream from the Constitution. It's downstream from legal precedent. It's downstream from taxes. It's downstream from everything on a very very fundamental level. Every piece of the government should be working in the best interest of the American citizen. Is that in the best interest of the American citizen? Obviously not. Obviously it is not. So no, I don't think I I don't think they should listen to it. Absolutely not. Coalitions of tribes conspired to deport each other. Well, there literally how does this benefit us? Yeah, it doesn't. Like there's no benefit to the American there is no benefit to the American citizen and the American family that a Chinese billionaire a or uh you know anybody from South America can uh you know basically maliciously break into our country have a kid and default that kid citizenship and then that kid has a bunch of privileges. The justices are not taking the survival of the nation seriously. I just hope that Trump is. And after watching majority of justices cast doubt on the constitutionality of his bid to end birthright citizenship for 90 minutes, Trump has left the Supreme Court. He posted, what did he say? Uh he posted on Truth Social afterwards, we are only a country, we are the only country in the world to allow, stupid enough to allow birthright citizenship. Well, the thing is just Andrew Jackson them. That's what I think you should do. I do. I think you should just openly ignore the Supreme Court. If they're not going to uphold this and they're going to say that it's more important for us to give birthright citizenship to illegal aliens, that is insane to me. Absolutely [ __ ] crazy. And I hope somebody actually does something about that. He's mad. I'm very like I I I think anybody should be mad about this. Honestly, I think they should be. And uh yeah, and uh Biden ignored them. So why shouldn't Trump I mean I don't know what Biden did at all. It doesn't matter what Biden did. Like I'd say do this anyway. It doesn't I have no like that means nothing to me. What somebody else did is totally irrelevant. The fact is that like if you have these people that are saying that well because of this rule that means that we're not able to do anything about it. I mean I don't know what you can even say. And uh anyway let me go. I will look at the uh there is a video about this. We'll watch it. Can you explain about Andrew Jackson for the non-Americans here? So Andrew Jackson historically uh ignored the Supreme Court and said that well they don't have the military so they can't tell me what to do. And I think that's what Trump should do. I think that we have allowed a uh a basically a bureaucratic uh takeover of the country. We've allowed a massive takeover of the country by these people. And you have people that have taken their positions inside of the judicial branch. And what they've done is that they effectively don't uphold the law. They don't enforce the law. They don't hold people accountable. They don't do what they should be doing. And I think the reason why is because they're doing it off of ideological grounds. They're taking their position. They're weaponizing their position for an ideological reason and they're effectively misrepresenting the rules. So really, I mean, that that's what I think the main problem is. Is this the same Andrew Jackson responsible for the Trail of Tears? Uh, yes. Yes, that would be him. Uh, correct. And uh, anyway, so the recruitment numbers show he has the military support. Yeah, absolutely. And an American journalist got kidnapped in Iraq by the Islamic regime. Well, yeah. I mean, that's what happens. You go to Iraq. I mean, it's [ __ ] Iraq, man. What do you expect? So, uh, you think Trump appointed Supreme Court justices acting on ideological reasons to make this decision? Well, if he did, he didn't do a very good job, did he? So, uh, I wish he had. And birthright citizenship is just a scam out of the systems. How the [ __ ] is this even an issue? Don't we have majority conservatives in the Supreme Court? Well, some of them care more about doing what they think is the rules rather than doing what they think is right. And I think that's the main issue is that they're more focused around a bureaucratic procedure rather than the actual best interest of the country. And that's the main problem that I have. To our other top story in just a few hours, President Trump literally, physically headed to the Supreme Court where oral arguments will be held over his push to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal migrants and temporary visitors to the US. You're going to go to the Supreme Court tomorrow. I do believe they just sit there and listen because I have listened to this argument for so long. And this is not about Chinese billionaires or billionaires from other countries who all of a sudden have 75 children or 59 children in one case or 10 children becoming American citizens. Joining me now, constitutional law attorney Mark Smith. And Mark, obviously I want to focus on the law throughout the segment, but we have to talk about this. Uh, what do you make of President Trump being the first president based upon all of our research to ever attend an argument at the Supreme Court? Yeah, that's a lot. It's a great idea. Look, he is the party and if you're a party, you're totally entitled to go to court and observe the proceedings. So, I think President Trump should attend today. He is the party here. He is the one that created this lawsuit and thank God he did. It was his executive order that finally got this issue of birthright citizenship before uh the court because as you know Todd the reality was up until now there was nobody had standing to challenge this absurdity of basically anyone that comes to United States and has a kid they become an automatic American citizen. You could not challenge that because no one had ch standing to do so until President Trump wisely did this executive order. So he should attend this argument because uh he's the one that caused it. Let's drill down into I think this has been going on for as long as I've been alive. I mean, as soon as I realized that you could do this, I was like, well, what the [ __ ] This seems like it's totally unfair. law. This case is challenging a longheld interpretation of the 14th amendment with section one of the amendment reading, quote, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and this is the key part right here, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." How should the court ultimately rule on that question? We had it underlined on the screen. Jurisdiction thereof. Well, the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof has a clear historical meaning. Remember, after the Civil War, the whole goal was to make sure slaves and their children were made American citizens. It was originally done by by congressional statute, Todd, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but there was concerns that a statute would not be sufficient to last the rest of the country's history. So, the decision was made to create the 14th Amendment. And the reason why that's significant is when you read the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it literally says to be an American citizen, you have to be born in the United States and also not subject to any foreign power. That language was essentially elevated into the Constitution in the form of the 14th Amendment. So today, if you're simply visiting the United States, if you sneak into the country as then you're subject to foreign power because you're from another country alien and have a child, you are still subject to the to a foreign power, meaning your home country. So therefore, under the 14th amendment, you're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and you haven't met the criteria to be a citizen. And that's a pretty pretty straightforward argument. But of course, there's a vested interest on the other side to say that anyone born in the United States is an American citizen. And the only reason why that interpretation has lasted as long as it has is because, as you know, there's been no ability to challenge this in court because the only people withstanding are people that benefited from this wrong interpretation of the law. Exactly. The reason why it's been allowed to continue is because people benefit from it. That's exactly it. It's crazy that we've allowed this to happen for as long as it has. Uh, everyone else had no standing until this executive order by President Trump. I'm going to push back slightly. You said it's the other side, Democrats specifically, and you're 100% right on that. But I would also argue Republicans have not been as enthusiastic, let's say, as the Republicans are. I mean, honestly, I might as well we might as well just get cosplayers. Why don't we just hire some Instagram girls to be the Republicans in the Senate and Congress because I think they do a better job. Like these people have no like they have these like these pretend principles but their principles are defined by the optics that are created by their enemies. It's pathetic. It's so pathetic. You are that this is going to be a win for their son. Prevailing wisdom as you well know is that this court is going to keep birthright citizenship in place. So with that as the baseline, what questions do you expect these justices to ask at oral arguments today? Who are you paying attention to? And ultimately, what does your gut tell you as to how Republicans do nothing when they have power? They sit on their asses. Can you imagine what it would have been like if after Donald Trump took office, he actually did things like cuz you remember that first like two weeks was crazy. Like he got rid of all the DEI. He shut down USA ID. They were going through everybody's stuff. Like can you imagine that? That would have been crazy. Like he did all right. But man, bro, I think he's fallen off. Like he's been so focused on these international issues. Will rule when they rule in a few months. Well, this court is very much an originalist court. And what that means, as you know, Todd, as an attorney yourself, is you look at the text of the relevant law, this is the 14th Amendment, and you look at the surrounding history. Keep in mind, there is I'm sure Yeah. And this is what's so crazy to me. Do you really think that Thomas Jefferson would see if you could teleport Thomas Jefferson to America today or George Washington or Alexander Hamilton or anybody else in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? If you could teleport any of them and and have them watch a Chinese billionaire have a hundred kids here and default those kids citizenship and then have a million [ __ ] South Americans, not a million, millions of South Americans coming across the border having kids so the kids can be [ __ ] citizens here and get benefits and then vote based off of that. Do you really think that they'd be like, "Oh yeah, that sounds great." Oh yeah. Yeah, that that's exactly Yeah, that that's what we were Yeah, this is what we were hoping for. Of course not. Obviously not. Already a group of people that were born in the United States at the time of the 14th amendment but were not made citizens because they were subject to a foreign power. And that was the Native American population. The Native American population was born in the United States in the late 19th century at the time of the 14th amendment. But they were not American citizens. Why? Because they were subject to a foreign power in the form of their tribes. So there's clear historical evidence here in addition to the text as to the what it means. And again, because this is an originalist court that focuses on the text and the history at the time a law was enacted, that's where they're going to be focusing on the entire framing of this problem is completely wrong. The framing that should matter should be, is this good for the country? And if it's not and the amendment allows that, then you should re-evaluate the way that it's interpreted. Like you can interpret something in 50 different ways. What was the understanding of and the people that ratified the 14th amendment in the year of our Lord 1868? I am not a Supreme Court justice yet. 1868. I think your argument really did. Yeah. I really wonder whether the people in 1868 wanted bunch of Mexicans and Chinese to come over to America and spawn in infinity anchor babies. Yeah. I really wonder if that's what they were waiting for. Oh jeez, guys. It's a [ __ ] mystery. Yeah, but the people that are also had a major ruling yesterday. uh the state of Colorado cannot enforce its conversion therapy ban with Colorado uh people that live there because it violates the first amendment specifically. How vital is this ruling? An 8-1 ruling. You got a couple of very very liberal justices to buy in. How vital is this ruling to preserve free speech protections which as you well know so much in recent years? About 30 seconds to you Mark. Well, this is a very important ruling because Colorado basically said that therapists that do talk therapy are allowed to encourage someone to convert to a different gender, but they were not allowed to encourage someone to remain the gender that they currently were born into. Let's say, wait, so they are allowed to encourage you to change your gender, but not to keep your gender. Oh, uh, this is a very big deal because if you allowed Colorado to define, uh, the ability to define what you're allowed to say because you have a professional license of any sort, that would have viscerated the sec the first amendment. Anyone of course that has some sort of professional license granted to the state, it would be a condition of getting that license to basically tow the politically correct line. And the Supreme Court says no can do. We're not going to let that happen. That would violate egg cracking. Yeah, I think it's so important. Yeah. Isn't it crazy that they've decided to re They have a euphemism for grooming. It's called cracking the egg. It's crazy. This case not through the lens of conversion. We know who does that, but really through the lens of what it means for the First Amendment. This is I don't really care about this to be honest. Uh let me go back. I'll see if there's any more of this. I'll I'll watch one more of this. Uh, so I can't tell you that you're a boy, but let me tell you about chopping off your wang and folding it inside and go dress shopping. Yeah, that's exactly it. And uh, let me uh I'll watch this, too, because it's just insane. World War II internment camps. Oh my [ __ ] god, bro. Like, this is just it drives me [ __ ] crazy. I'm sorry, Justice Barrett. Um, so I have a question about the exceptions again. So in your interchange with Justice Kavanaaugh just now, you were talking about it as a closed set of exceptions and said that way it sounds like exceptions that people had in mind at the time of the ratification but that were not explicit in the amendment. But I took your brief to be arguing that subject to the jurisdiction thereof is the language in the 14th amendment that refers to those exceptions. Am I right? That's right. Okay. It describes them. It describes them. And would you say this goes back to a question that Justice Gorsuch asked General Sour. Um our relationship to the Indian tribes is different today than it was at the time that the 14th Amendment was ratified. Let's put aside section 1401. Um is an tribal Indian born on a reservation today on tribal land um a natural-born citizen under the 14th amendment? Under the 14th amendment, no. Of course, Congress has provided for uh citizenship for all tribal members uh in the this is another it's another intentional misunderstanding. It's an intentional like it's got nothing to do with Indians. It's got nothing to do with Native Americans. This is not the point by statute. And so is that this is semantics. It's all semantics. Does what subject to the jurisdiction of meant when you say exceptions. It means that the jurisdiction as it existed in at the time of the 14th amendment is still the jurisdiction So I to be let me just be a little bit clear. You know, Justice Kavanagh asked you if we could create new categories by analogy. So there may be other sorts of people who were present here to whom this subject to the jurisdiction in the same way that we were talking about, you know, the bubbles around ambassadors or this Oh my god, this topic's killing me. I I I I am losing my [ __ ] mind having to listen to this [ __ ] It makes me so mad having to listen to anything else about this. I am so insanely [ __ ] upset about this. It is just in [ __ ] infuriating that there is a this massive entire bureaucratic machine that's made to intentionally misunderstand, misinterpret and do everything in a way that is like this weird bureaucratic abstraction of what reality is. It is Is it an April Fool's today? Uh, it sure seems like it. I'll tell you that. And uh, anyway, let me go back over. I'll look at this. Is skeptical because it would be messy. Okay, here's one more. I don't think we haven't seen this one yet, have we? Okay, let's talk about its applications. So, you know, there are some I I can imagine it being messy on some applications. So, how what would you do with what the common law called Oh. Oh, we already did see this. Never mind. I already saw it before. And uh let me go and see if there's any more of these that are worth looking at. And uh why no stream yesterday? So why I didn't stream yesterday? It's actually very simple. Uh it's because I didn't really feel like it. Uh that's the reason why. Yep. That's it. I I didn't really feel like it and I I want to take the off tire. Justice Kavanagh. Mhm. Uh, General, how should we think about the text of the 14th amendment subject to the jurisdiction thereof as distinct from the different language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which refers, as you know, to persons not subject to any foreign power? Oh, bro, like, is this Oh, man. Wait a second. Wait. Oh, [ __ ] It's not the video. God damn it. Let me see if I can find the video for this. Go back up a little. Okay, relax, guys. And uh yeah, let me see if I can find it. And uh saw your video. It was good. Thank you. Yeah, and I did record a video to be fair. And uh you know, and uh watching Shuon Head today. I I was going to. I just don't know necessarily when I'm going to. Uh but yeah, at some point I will. And I was playing Crimson Desert all day. No, there's no way I would do that. And uh let me go and see if I can find the rest of this here. And maybe this is it. and I can see if there's any more links to this because I do, as I said, I I I do care a lot about this. I find it to be extremely [ __ ] frustrating for me to look at, but uh unfortunately Oh, here we go. All right, let's let's This will be the last one probably. Um so, I guess I am looking at your position in this case and it boils down to requiring us to do at least these two things. One is believe that the framers were not importing the common law rule and understanding of birthright And the second is to believe that what they were doing was departing from that common law rule in the way that you suggest that is in the they were seeking to have this turn on doicile. I think you have a number of hurdles to accomplish those two things. One of which I think is that when we look at this court's case law and no one I think has mentioned schooner's exchange but it appears that that was a 19 an 1812 case in which it seems as though the court had already accepted it's 50 years before the amendment at the time of the ratification of the 14th amendment that the allegiance that you are talking about was the English common law rule. That in other words, allegiance meant um that you are uh covered by the laws of the jurisdiction, that you can rely on that jurisdiction's protection. That's what allegiance meant. Now, you're saying today, no, no, allegiance meant something about loyalty or that kind of idea. But if the sup under what reasoning do you think that like it's insane? This is the crazy. Do American soldiers like I I don't under. If you invade another country, do you have allegiance to them because you're in that country? No. Supreme Court had prior to the 14th amendment established. That allegiance meant the common law definition. Drives me crazy. I think your first hurdle is to help us understand why we would believe that when the common when the 14th amendment was ratified um the framers weren't just incorporating what we had previously said it meant. Page 572 of the congressional record directly addresses this. They say the concept of temporary and local allegiance from the schooner exchange is what is meant by or temporary and local jurisdiction from the schooner exchange is what is meant by the word jurisdiction in the 14th amendment. Senator Trumbull says, "I THOUGHT ABOUT SAYING OWING ALLEGIANCE, BUT AGAIN, QUOTE, there's a sort of allegiance from persons temporarily resident in the United States whom we have no right to make citizens." So, expressly and consciously objective reliance on what do we do with I mean that's a between Feezington and Wade where the clear at least from Senator Wade's perspective that um that's wrong. So Senate Fezendon and I'm not sure whether these are senators I apologize. Fezendon says suppose a person is born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country. Wade responds, "The senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen." I know that is so in one instance in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside near the United States, that dis exchange at least Senator Wade believed that the English common law understanding of what it means person on the soil insane uh was what was being adopted. Yeah, that cont or that exchange strongly supports us. if you look at it in context, Senator Wade has introduced background understanding that we all agree. Yeah. If they're drawing a conclusion to that, it means that they're not you. They obviously did not imply that every single person that was here, regardless of status, would have their kid be a citizen. I mean, very clearly because if there wasn't a distinction that was implied, they wouldn't need to have made it in the first place. The temporary visitors, their children do not become citizens. And then Senator Wade has to kind of backtrack and say, well, what are they children of ambassadors? And in the end, Congress does not adopt Senator Wade's proposal. So we think that to the extent you can draw an inference of that, the inference strongly. Let me just ask you about why we wouldn't see in the 14th amendment anything about parental allegiance. Several of my colleagues have talked about the fact that your view of this turns on what the status of the parents are. Well, we don't have computers in the first amendment um and not the child as would the written. Um what h how can you help us understand why we wouldn't expect to see a mention of parents in the text of this amendment? I think it was well understood that for example children cannot you know newborns cannot form doicile so it follow every 19th century that assumes doicile is in the test and I'm asking you how do we know that congress did adopt the test that you say it adopted yeah when you're looking at 19th century conceptions of allegiance the notion that the allegiance again we say doicile is instantiating the concept of allegiance for aliens as opposed to citizen all of that the 19th century understands the newborns doicile its allegiance follows the allegiance of the parents and I point out that their theory relies on presence as well because they recognize the exceptions for you know hostile invading armies for tribal Indians for ambassadors again the child's allegiance status even on their view turns on the status of the parent what do we do with with professor Müller's amicus brief and the historical record and the fact that even at times in this country where we understood that the parents were declared enemies of the United States. I'm talking about World War II and Japanese internment. Babies born in that circumstance were given birthight citizenship because they were still citizens. Like obviously like how is this even how do you even ask this? So it seems as though this concept of allegiance of the parents really wasn't this at least at this period of our history. So are you saying this is wrong or they shouldn't have gotten birthright citizenship? Well, if they were doiciled here, yes, they should have. If they were temporarily present, then no. But but the executive practice we can see from the 1930s, how does the temporary presence run with your concept of allegiance? I'm not sure I understand. So, can you be clear? How does somebody not being a citizen and only being here temporarily mean that they're not allied to the United States? Is this a real question? This is crazy. Are you saying that only people who are doiciled here as you define it can form the necessary loyalty to the United States? It's not a qu allegiance is not a question of subjective loyalty. Okay. Oh, it is something you owe. It's a reciprocal relationship between the citizen whether they want it or not. They have that allegiance. And I think it's powerfully on the basis of what? Doicile. I mean, that's what it says in so many words in the Venus and the Bizarro. says, "Look, if you're talking about an alien, if they're just temporarily passing through, no, they don't have allegiance, but if they've made it, especially if they've invaded the country, at home, they become part of our polit political community and they are analogist or akin to citizens." All right, just quickly because I'm I'm mindful of the time. Um, what do you do with Juan Juan Kim Arc's statement that I think that we saw this part already. Yeah, it's just it's it's absolutely couldn't define a woman during her confirmation. Yeah. I mean, if you can't define what a woman is, I mean, how the like this is the type of just insanity that people are putting up with nowadays. Like if you can't define what a woman is, you have no business having anything to do with writing laws.