Wall Street Journal: Trunp is right on birthright citizenship

Latest Polls (view all)

Where do you stand on the Transgender Issue now that the issue has gotten to the overt point of the open celebration of this lifestyle choice, dictated by certain direct and explicit actions.

91.07% I do not approve of behavior that has within its expressed tenants policies that harm children.

8.04% I do support the Trans Community in all its many facets because diversity is at a premium in today's society.

0.89% What is a "Children's Drag Queen Story Hour?"

Click Here to Vote
112 Vote(s)

View all Polls

Wall Street Journal: Trunp is right on birthright citizenship

Published: Wednesday, April 1st, 2026 @ 8:21 am
By: John Steed ( More Entries )

Among conservative legal s;cholats, "originalism" staying true to the intent of the drafters of the Constitution and its amendments, is the most fundamental consideration in interpreting them. Liberals prefer to twist meanings to get whatever result they want at the moment. This will be the key battle in the Supreme Court over President Trump's executive order ending "birthright citizenship".

Most developed countries in the world base citizenship on the nationality of the parents, not on where the child happens to be born. President Trump's EO follows that theory of citizenship.

The issue before the Supreme Court turns on the meaning of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. After its adoption, the Supreme Court heard a case on the issue of whether American Indians were US citizens under the 14th amendment or not. The court held that since Indians were subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments which were treated as nations, that the 14th amendment did not make them citizens of the US. Congress had to pass legislation to make them citizens.

Most important in the present case is that more research into the positions of the authors of the 14th amendment clearly shows that they did not intend to give citizenship to children of foreign citizens just because they happened to be born in the United States. Tis was clearly stated in both the House and Senate while the 14th amendment was under consideration and no member at the time even suggested otherwise.

The majority on our Supreme Court claims to be originalists. This case will be test to see if they really are. One has to be concerned about weak kneeded members like John Roberts and Amy Comey Barrett.

The Wall Street Journal has a great opinion piece on the subject:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-is-right-on-birthright-citizenship-954ae377?st=tWd4Ha

Comments

borderhawk said:

( April 3rd, 2026 @ 11:04 am )

This is one of the most critical decisions ever to come before the court, and I worry that the court is too full of legal midgets.

Conservative Voter said:

( April 1st, 2026 @ 8:03 pm )

Roberts comments during oral arguments in this case point to his being a total sellout, another Earl Warren, a total spineless traitorous twit. He is almost certain to backstab us as he has often done while chief justice. Amy Comey Barrett, another all too frequent sell out also sounded very weak. Without one of them our Constitution will be permanently compromised by birthright citizenship that its authors never intended.

Idaho passes strongest bill protecting single sex bathrooms and locker rooms in the country.

Rant & Rave, Editorials, Beaufort Observer, Op-Ed & Politics

Fight Over Climate Chapter Exposes Tensions Between Judicial Neutrality And Activist Lawfare