Lincoln believed self-government requires citizens and their representatives to continue reasoning together about the meaning of the Constitution, even after courts have spoken.
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that states can acknowledge that biological reality matters when it comes to women’s sports. In a 9-0 ruling regarding Title IX and a 6-3 ruling on equal protection, the Supreme Court upheld laws in West Virginia and Idaho that protect safety and fairness for women and girls in athletics. Alliance […]
FOX News contributor Mollie Hemingway reacted to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship.
As a political matter, it’s understandable that Republicans are angered by the outcome of Trump v. Barbara, which finds that children born in the United States are entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment even if they aren’t citizens. The policy cheapens American citizenship. The legal debate centers on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause […]
Fox News commentator and right-wing talk radio host Mark Levin lashed out at the Supreme Court's decision upholding their century-old birthright citizenship precedent — but swiftly got called out by experts and observers for getting a basic fact about the decision incorrect.Levin, who declared the ruling "one of the dumbest decisions I’ve seen" on "Hannity" after it was handed down, took to X to complain that "The 14th amendment was adopted by more than 2/3rds of the members of Congress and thereafter ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Yet, nowhere can the Court or its proponents point to all those elected representatives at the federal and state level who argued for birthright citizenship for the children of aliens — illegal aliens of all matter!"That issue, Levin said, "wasn’t even on their collective mind. They were dealing with Reconstruction, which was going poorly. No, this is not a constitutional decision. It’s a cowardly decision. An abomination giving constitutional protection to what is illegal conduct."There's just one problem, as many observers pointed out: the Supreme Court did, in fact, address the exact issue Levin is claiming they did not address."Mark Levin is either outright lying or tacitly admitting he did not read the decision, because the Court explicitly discussed in great detail how 'those elected representatives' intended the 14th Amendment would apply to children of immigrants," wrote American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, quoting a passage from Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion that notes, "the bill's sponsor, Senator Lyman Trumbull, enthusiastically agreed with the bill's critics that it would make citizens of 'the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country.'""Tell me you didn't read the Roberts opinion without saying you didn't read that history lesson," wrote immigration attorney and Emory University law professor Charles Kuck."The history of the 14th Amendment is, literally, laid out extensively in the text of the majority opinion," wrote Tangle News founder Isaac Saul. "The entire first 20 pages is Roberts citing all the drafters of the 14th Amendment and their understanding exactly what they were doing. Does anyone read anymore?"
The Supreme Court ruled in NRSC v. FEC that political parties can spend unlimited amounts of money in direct coordination with their own candidates, further increasing the influence of money in politics and drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens.
The Supreme Court handed down the final decisions of its term on Tuesday and they reflected what we have seen all year: It is a very conservative court, and although it usually will rule in favor of President Trump, there are times when it will say no to unprecedented claims of presidential power.
The issue isn't whether America inherited English legal language; it's whether it inherited England's understanding of political membership.
The Supreme Court held in Trump v. Barbara that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil, including the children of parents who are here unlawfully or with temporary legal status. But the court did not decide whether birthright citizenship is good policy.