Source (thefederalist.com)
That a court with six Republican-appointed justices could hand down such a patently un-American decision is an indictment of America’s rogue legal system.
The Roberts Court just handed down a majority birthplace citizenship decision on the legal level of Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade. No judge who calls himself an originalist, textualist, or in any way claims dedication to American rule of law could support the 5-4 majority in Trump v. Barbara.
As the dissents and much other scholarly work show plainly and definitively, the 14th Amendment simply does not say that anyone who happens to be born on U.S. soil thereby magically becomes a U.S. citizen. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It’s not legally or verbally complicated.
It’s also not philosophically complicated. The American founders and the 14th Amendment framers’ understanding of citizenship has always been rooted in the consent of the governed, in an explicit rejection of the medieval subjectship Chief Justice John Roberts employed as the basis for his anti-American ruling. While Kavanaugh’s compromise position has legal and prudential merit, there is simply no legal, cultural, practical, or philosophical justification in legitimately American jurisprudence for Roberts’ majority.
[Source](https://thefederalist.com/2026/07/02/scotus-pasting-birth-tourism-into-the-constitution-demands-a-legal-system-rebuild/)
>
*That a court with six Republican-appointed justices could hand down such a patently un-American decision is an indictment of America’s rogue legal system.*
>
The Roberts Court just handed down a majority birthplace citizenship decision on the legal level of Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade. No judge who calls himself an originalist, textualist, or in any way claims dedication to American rule of law could support the 5-4 majority in Trump v. Barbara.
>
As the dissents and much other scholarly work show plainly and definitively, the 14th Amendment simply does not say that anyone who happens to be born on U.S. soil thereby magically becomes a U.S. citizen. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It’s not legally or verbally complicated.
>
It’s also not philosophically complicated. The American founders and the 14th Amendment framers’ understanding of citizenship has always been rooted in the consent of the governed, in an explicit rejection of the medieval subjectship Chief Justice John Roberts employed as the basis for his anti-American ruling. While Kavanaugh’s compromise position has legal and prudential merit, there is simply no legal, cultural, practical, or philosophical justification in legitimately American jurisprudence for Roberts’ majority.
Login or register