Podcasts about Fourteenth Amendment

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 19, 2026 11:37

August 18, 2026On August 18, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, It gave the right to vote to women, The push for rights for women had taken root during the Civil War, But the Fourteenth Amendment tied the right to vote to male citizens only, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony formed the National Women Suffrage Association, followed by Lucy Stone and Julia Ward Howe's founding of the American Women Suffrage Association, Suffragists decided to test their right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment in the 1872 election, When Suffragist Virginia Minor was kept from voting, she sued, and the case went to the Supreme Court which decided that women were citizens, but that citizenship did not necessarily convey the right to vote, For the next two decades, women's suffrage drew its power from women's organizations across the country, While laws changed to allow women to vote in some states, federal action was needed, Woodrow Wilson, under pressure in the midterm election of 1918 backed a constitutional amendment, The amendment became the law of the land after it was ratified by Tennessee, and 26 million American women had the right to vote in the 1920 presidential election, But most Black women and women of color would remain unable to vote for another 45 years, Black women activists were among the leading voices behind the 1965 Voting Rights Act that made Black voting a reality, In 2026, Christian nationalists want to repeal women's right to vote.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

american black fighting tennessee supreme court civil war letters constitution blue sky voting rights act woodrow wilson susan b anthony right to vote fourteenth amendment elizabeth cady stanton suffragists nineteenth amendment julia ward howe lucy stone

America's Promissory Note

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 11, 2026 69:05

The Declaration as a “promissory note”—and what it demands now In the final discussion of The Declaration at 250 series, Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, argues that the Declaration of Independence should be read in the Lincoln–King tradition: not as proof that the American project was completed in 1776, but as a promissory note that sets enduring standards for justice. He confronts the central tension head-on—slavery alongside the Declaration's equality claims—contending that the nation's gravest wrongs were never the result of too much devotion to the Declaration's ideals, but rather repeated failures to honor them. For George, the Declaration's moral architecture depends on natural law and natural rights: rights are not gifts from the state, courts, or political majorities, but are grounded in a “more-than-merely human” authority and therefore cannot be legitimately revoked by human power. He then reframes the most familiar triad—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—arguing that “liberty” is freedom for worthy ends (not license) and “happiness” is flourishing and character (not mere pleasure or desire satisfaction), which means the founding principles carry substantive moral content rather than a thin, value-neutral individualism. Jonathan Gienapp, Professor of History at Stanford University, broadens and complicates this account by bringing the Declaration's historical context into sharper focus. He emphasizes that the document's immediate purpose was political: to justify revolution and to define legitimate liberty as non-domination—being governed by laws made with genuine representation and consent rather than by an alien will. Gienapp presses George to connect moral freedom-for-flourishing to political freedom-as-self-government: what changes if we place republicanism and democracy at the center of the Declaration's promise, alongside natural rights? He also signals that the Declaration did not simply announce shared principles; it generated intense argument almost immediately over what “liberty” and “licentiousness” meant in practice, setting up a long-running contest over whose interpretation truly carried forward the Revolution's aims. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: [00:00:26 – 00:04:40] Chapter 1 — Series finale setup + introducing the speakers Host Michael McConnell closes out The Declaration at 250 and tees up the theme: the Declaration as a “promissory note,” then introduces Robert P. George and Jonathan Gienapp and frames the conversation as a capstone debate.[00:04:40 – 00:42:48] Chapter 2 — Robert P. George's case: natural rights, civic virtue, and “freedom for” flourishing George argues America's failures come from infidelity to the Declaration, not devotion to it, and grounds rights in a Creator and natural law. He reframes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as moral claims aimed at virtue, ordered liberty, and human flourishing—not license or pleasure.[00:43:00 – 00:47:45] Chapter 3 — Jonathan Gienapp's first question: liberty as non-domination and self-government Gienapp presses the political meaning of liberty at the founding—freedom as non-domination under representative institutions and consent. He asks how George's moral account of liberty connects to republican self-rule and the Declaration's grievance-driven justification for revolution.[00:47:45 – 01:00:19] Chapter 4 — Jonathan Gienapp's second and third questions: wealth inequality + early fights over “liberty vs. licentiousness” Gienapp adds the material foundations of republicanism—property distribution, anti-aristocracy reforms like abolishing primogeniture/entail—and asks how inequality threatens civic virtue and ordered liberty. He then argues the Declaration sparked immediate, bitter disputes (Federalists vs. Jeffersonians/Jacksonians) over what counted as true liberty and who “captured the soul” of American democracy.[01:00:27 – 01:09:09] Chapter 5 — George's replies: non-domination affirmed, inequality debated, polarization then vs. now George embraces the non-domination point and explains how founders linked freedom and republican self-government, while suggesting leading founders worried more about forced leveling than wealth gaps. He reflects on early partisan conflict but argues today's divide is deeper because Americans no longer share a common moral vocabulary or civic framework. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

america american director history americans professor creator revolution series martin luther king jr democracy equality stanford university abraham lincoln declaration princeton university institutions declaration of independence civil rights movement polarization simplecast james madison imago dei natural law civil society due process federalism jurisprudence fourteenth amendment social mobility wealth inequality federalist papers republicanism checks and balances natural rights self government separation of powers federalists american ideals equal protection expressive individualism james madison program paper money thirteenth amendment robert p george unalienable rights michael mcconnell james harrington mccormick professor promissory note jeffersonians robert bellah jonathan gienapp pam karlan gienapp stanford legal

The Voting Rights Act

american black americans congress world war ii supreme court louisiana letters constitution opposition blue sky dwight eisenhower lyndon baines johnson voting rights act civil rights act fourteenth fourteenth amendment indigenous americans thirteenth amendment

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 7, 2026 12:02

August 6, 2026On August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, In 1865, Americans ratified the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, outlawing enslavement except as punishment for crimes, In subsequent years, with the ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, citizenship was guaranteed to anyone born or naturalized in the US (except certain Indigenous Americans) and the right to vote was extended to Black men, These amendments gave Congress the power to enforce them, In response, white opponents hindered the ability of Black men to vote, Opposition did not gain traction until after WWII, when judges used the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to argue that states could not deprive any American of equality, Under pressure from President Dwight D Eisenhower, Congress passed civil rights acts in 1957 and 1960, and in 1964 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which strengthened voting rights, In 1965, the Voting Rights Act became law, It was reauthorized repeatedly by large margins, but in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the provision of the law requiring that states with a history of discrimination get approval before changing voting laws, The assault on the Voting Rights Act continued in 2026, after the decision in Louisiana v Callais, The gap between white and Black voter turnout in the 2024 election was the highest since at least 2008.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

John Anthony Castro Continues Fight for Freedom, Appeals to Supreme Court and International Bodies

The NeoLiberal Round

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 7, 2026 14:18

Former Republican presidential candidate says he is a political prisoner as legal battle enters new phase. By Renaldo McKenzie | The Neoliberal. In this episode of The Neoliberal Round Podcast, Renaldo McKenzie examines the continuing incarceration and legal battle of John Anthony Castro, former GOP presidential candidate and president of AI Tax. Castro gained national attention after challenging Donald Trump's eligibility for office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. He later faced federal tax-related charges and now maintains that his prosecution and incarceration were politically motivated. In his latest conversation with Renaldo McKenzie, Castro discusses his continuing fight for freedom, his appeals through the federal courts, his plans involving the U.S. Supreme Court, and petitions submitted to international bodies, including the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the International Criminal Court.Castro also discusses allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, undisclosed agreements involving government witnesses, his filing of multiple Freedom of Information Act requests, and his belief that efforts continue to shape public opinion against him. Throughout the conversation, he reflects on faith, perseverance, imprisonment, justice, and his belief that his name will ultimately be cleared.Renaldo concludes the conversation with a prayer for Castro, his family, and for justice to prevail.The full article accompanying this episode is available in The Neoliberal Post and The Neoliberal Journals.Read more at RenaldoCMcKenzie.com and TheNeoliberal.com.For inquiries, comments, interviews, or information, email info@theneoliberal.com.The Neoliberal Round PodcastHosted by Renaldo McKenzieNews. Commentary. Politics. Philosophy. Culture. Power.Donate to us at https://donate.stripe.com/7sYcN48uybAA2OEb9V93y06Call us 445-260-9198

culture donald trump power freedom politics international philosophy supreme court bodies commentary castro gop appeals international criminal court information act fourteenth amendment renaldo former republican united nations working group john anthony castro

Trump Goes 0-21 on Voter Rolls, Signs New Birthright Orders & Meta Hit With $567M in New Mexico

Minimum Competence

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 7, 2026 7:14

This Day in Legal History: The Gulf of Tonkin ResolutionOn August 7, 1964, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, one of the most consequential—and most cautionary—delegations of power in American history. The vote was overwhelming: unanimous in the House, and 88 to 2 in the Senate. The resolution authorized President Lyndon Johnson “to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression” in Southeast Asia—and it became the legal foundation for the escalation of the Vietnam War, all without a formal declaration of war.The resolution passed after Johnson told the public that North Vietnamese torpedo boats had made unprovoked attacks on two U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. In the years that followed, serious doubts emerged about what had actually happened—particularly regarding the second reported attack, which may never have occurred at all. Congress, acting on the president's account and in a moment of Cold War urgency, handed the executive branch what amounted to a blank check for war. At the time there were only about 25,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam; that number would eventually exceed half a million.The significance of August 7, 1964 is that it became the defining lesson in the dangers of Congress ceding its war powers to the president. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war precisely because the founders feared executive war-making, and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution showed what happens when the legislature abdicates that role. The backlash shaped a generation of law: Congress rescinded the resolution in 1970, and in 1973 passed the War Powers Resolution over President Nixon's veto, trying to claw back some control over the commitment of American forces. It's a permanent reminder—resonant on a day full of stories about the reach of executive power—that authority handed over in a crisis is very hard to take back.The Trump administration's campaign to force states to hand over their voter registration data has now lost twenty-one court cases in a row—an unbroken streak of defeats as the November midterms approach. According to a Reuters analysis, the Justice Department has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia seeking their voter rolls, and it has gone zero for twenty-one, with federal courts from Pennsylvania to California to Michigan, plus the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, all rejecting the effort. Here's the detail that really tells the story: seven of the fifteen district judges who ruled against the administration were appointed by Trump himself, and some Republican state officials—in Idaho, Kentucky, Utah, and West Virginia—have resisted the requests too. This isn't a partisan split; it's a near-consensus rejection. The legal problem is structural. Under the Constitution, the administration of elections is primarily the job of the states, and courts have repeatedly found the federal government lacks the authority to simply demand statewide voter data. We've tracked the pieces of this all summer—the SAVE database fights, the threats to prosecute election officials, the mail-in voting order—and this is the throughline: a coordinated push for federal control over election machinery running headlong into a judiciary, staffed partly by the president's own appointees, that keeps saying no. The significance is that the courts are holding a hard line on the decentralized structure of American elections, and doing it unanimously enough that it's hard to dismiss as politics. It's a fitting counterpoint to yesterday's Voting Rights Act anniversary: sixty years apart, the fights over who controls the ballot continue. Analysis: Trump loses 21 straight court battles for state voter rolls as midterms near | ReutersCBS News · Brennan CenterPresident Trump has signed two new executive orders attempting to narrow birthright citizenship—despite the fact that the Supreme Court rejected his last attempt just over a month ago. Recall that on June 30, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, striking down his earlier order. These new orders are narrower. The White House is taking aim at “birth tourism”—foreigners traveling to the U.S. specifically to give birth—and at denying birthright citizenship to children of some foreign diplomatic staff, with the possibility of extending limits to U.S. territories later. It's worth being precise here, because the two pieces are legally very different. The diplomatic-staff piece actually sits on firmer ground: the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and children of accredited foreign diplomats have long been recognized as a genuine exception. But the birth-tourism piece runs straight into the June ruling, which held that a child's citizenship doesn't depend on the immigration status or purpose of the parents. And crucially, these are executive orders—they set executive-branch policy, but they don't carry the force of a statute or override a constitutional holding. After his June loss, Trump had called on Congress to act; instead he's gone back to the executive-order well. The significance is a real test of what a president can do after the Supreme Court has ruled against him on constitutional grounds. Legal experts say it's unclear what practical effect these orders can even have, and fresh legal challenges are all but certain. It's an attempt to chip at the edges of a ruling the administration couldn't overturn head-on. Trump to sign orders on birthright citizenship, Axios reports | ReutersCBS News · Al JazeeraAnd finally, a New Mexico judge has ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a teen mental-health fund and to substantially overhaul how its platforms work for young users—one of the most significant rulings yet in the wave of litigation over social media and children. Judge Bryan Biedscheid in Santa Fe found that Meta created a “public nuisance” in New Mexico, siding with Attorney General Raúl Torrez—the same AG who, as we noted yesterday, is suing the Justice Department over the Epstein files. Torrez had accused Meta of designing its products to addict young users and failing to protect children from sexual exploitation on its platforms. The “public nuisance” theory is worth flagging, because it's the same legal tool that drove the big opioid settlements: the idea that a company's conduct created a widespread harm to the public that it can be forced to help abate. And the money is only part of it. The judge imposed a five-year decree requiring concrete design changes—monthly limits on teens' time on Facebook and Instagram, restrictions on notifications, tighter controls on adult contact with minors, safeguards around AI chatbots, and enhanced review of child sexual abuse reports. This lands amid everything we've tracked: the Tennessee trial that just opened, the multistate penalty fight, the bellwether cases. Meta says it will appeal and that it's been working to remove harmful content. The significance is that a court hasn't just put a price on Meta's conduct—it has ordered the company to redesign its products for kids, backed by the public-nuisance theory. If that approach holds up on appeal, it's a template other states will follow, and it moves the social-media reckoning from damages into the far more consequential territory of forced design change. New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567 mln teen mental health fund | ReutersWashington Post · Yahoo Finance This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Day Break | Primaries, Power, and a Nation Under Pressure

The Steve Gruber Show

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 5, 2026 114:52

Day Break | Primaries, Power, and a Nation Under Pressure --- 00:00 - Monologue 19:12 – Dominic Green, Wall Street Journal contributor and Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. Green discusses the unusual migration and geopolitical tensions surrounding Ceuta, examining how the situation reflects broader issues involving border security, international relations, and European immigration policy. 28:14 – Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, Epidemiologist and Administrator at The McCullough Foundation. Hulscher discusses the ongoing salmonella outbreak affecting multiple states, explaining what salmonella is, why a significant number of cases have required hospitalization, and the recent egg recall tied to the outbreak. He also examines food safety, industrial agriculture, treatment options, and the importance of preparedness for foodborne illnesses. 38:21 - Monologue 47:26 – Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and constitutional law scholar. Wurman discusses modern constitutional interpretation, exploring how judicial philosophy has evolved over time and examining the role of originalism and the Fourteenth Amendment in today's legal landscape. 57:30 – Bethany S. Mandel, conservative columnist and political commentator. Mandel discusses Representative Brandon Gill's use of the Socratic method in political debate, examining how questioning and public dialogue can shape political messaging and influence public discourse. 1:06:28– Steve Bonta, Executive Senior Editor at The New American magazine. Bonta discusses the economic realities facing the electric vehicle industry, examining consumer demand, production costs, government incentives, and the long-term viability of EV adoption. 1:16:35 - Monologue 1:25:40 – Ron Rademacher, travel writer, author, storyteller, and host of Around Michigan. Rademacher highlights festivals, local attractions, and unique destinations across Michigan, encouraging listeners to explore the state's communities and seasonal events. 1:35:48 – Kaitlyn Buss, columnist for The Detroit News. Buss analyzes the results of Michigan's primary elections, discussing the major races, key takeaways from the results, and what they could signal for the state's political landscape heading into the general election. --- Check out our brand new podcast, 'Forgotten America'... Episode 24 is live NOW at Steve Gruber on YouTube! Link below: https://youtu.be/UrGZQdE62jA

university power law michigan european green minnesota pressure wall street journal fellow ev mph administrators primaries daybreak socratic ceuta buss epidemiologists mandel new american detroit news fourteenth amendment royal historical society bonta rademacher dominic green steve gruber ron rademacher

He Was Put on Child Support at 12-- Now He's Taking The System to Congress | Inside The Vault

Inside The Vault with Ash Cash

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 4, 2026 62:01 Transcription Available

He was put on child support at just 12 years old.By the time Lionel “TJ” Tillman learned what had happened, he says he was already $24,000 in debt—despite the court determining that he had not reached puberty when the child was conceived.After fighting the case for more than two decades, proving that the process involved extrinsic fraud, and eventually recovering his money, TJ is no longer focused solely on his personal battle.Now, he is taking the system to Congress.In this powerful episode of Inside the Vault with Ash Cash, TJ introduces the proposed Bringing Families Back Together and Child Support Equity Act of 2027—a bill created to promote equal parenting, due process, financial fairness, transparency, and healthier relationships between children and both fit and present parents.Ash and TJ examine some of the most controversial questions surrounding family court and child support:Can someone be held financially responsible without being the biological father?Why are some parents learning about child-support orders only after their wages are garnished?Are government incentives helping families—or rewarding separation?And why should a parent who is actively fighting to be present automatically be treated like an absent parent?TJ also makes one thing clear: this is not a “get out of responsibility” movement. He believes parents who refuse to support their children should be held accountable.His fight is for fairness, equal parenting, proper notice, due process, and a system that puts the well-being of children ahead of conflict between adults.This is not about mothers versus fathers.It is about choosing the children.Watch until the end to learn how you can support the petition, help bring the proposed legislation before Congress, and become part of a national movement to strengthen families.Sign the petition: change.org/childrenneedbothChapters00:00 – He was put on child support at 12 years old 01:08 – Message for entrepreneurs, coaches and business owners 02:05 – Protecting the family is a generational investment 03:04 – The Bringing Families Back Together and Child Support Equity Act 03:55 – “Take care of your children—this is not a free pass” 05:21 – Who is Lionel “TJ” Tillman? 05:38 – Put on child support at 12 and $24,000 in debt 06:32 – Could he have biologically fathered the child? 07:15 – Declared the legal father despite the court's findings 08:53 – Why outdated policies need to change 09:34 – Why TJ is taking the system to Congress 10:12 – Education, policy and prevention 11:18 – Does due process apply in family court? 11:51 – Equal parenting should begin at birth 12:53 – Georgia's legitimation process explained 14:11 – The $755 million child-support incentive claim 15:11 – Why TJ is pursuing federal reform 15:45 – Incentivizing families to stay together 17:25 – No parent should have to fight for their children 17:46 – Fathers ask for joint legal and physical custody 18:34 – How public assistance affected the family structure 19:35 – Who determines whether a parent is fit? 21:18 – Why must parents fight for more time with their children? 22:00 – “You want support, but you don't want support” 22:29 – TJ announces The Family Code podcast 22:39 – The hidden trauma families refuse to discuss 24:02 – Why TJ challenges the child-support system 24:17 – The Fourteenth Amendment and parental rights 26:47 – How claims can be presumed valid until challenged 27:43 – Proper notice before enforcement actions 28:17 – Discovering child support through wage garnishment 30:00 – Finding out on payday that half his check was gone 32:10 – Personal service versus substitute service 33:13 – Vindication after a 22-year fight 34:00 – The forged signature and vacant-house service 35:00 – Paying child support for 11 years 37:26 – Filing an insurance claim against Los Angeles County 38:30 – How TJ finally recovered his money 39:20 – Helping parents challenge their cases 40:15 – Why he refuses to assist irresponsible parents 41:41 – Raising his daughter as a single father 43:00 – Why children may need both parents 44:40 – The child-support-to-prison pipeline 46:47 – Are urban communities being disproportionately targeted? 48:14 – Is TJ trying to weaken child-support laws? 48:34 – Child support should apply to absent parents 49:22 – Equal parental rights and the “noncustodial” label 50:00 – Handling difficult co-parenting and parental alienation 51:10 – Support beyond money: emotional and physical presence 52:00 – Parenting education, therapy and conflict resolution 54:00 – What America could look like if the bill passes 56:47 – How viewers can support the proposed legislation 57:17 – TJ's direct appeal to Congress 58:25 – This is not men versus women 58:36 – Putting children ahead of pride and conflict 59:41 – “This is not an attack on women, men or child support” 1:00:04 – How to connect with TJ and the foundation 1:00:32 – Closing the VaultAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Countering Contemporary Criticism of America's Founding Principles

AMERICA OUT LOUD PODCAST NETWORK

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 4, 2026 64:01

The real crisis isn't the Declaration—it's what we've stopped teaching. Peter Berkowitz, Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, contends that universities have failed at liberal education—the cultivation of citizens prepared to exercise freedom and responsibility. He attributes the breakdown to politicized classrooms, overreliance on narrow “scientistic” approaches in the social sciences, and a professional culture that trains future scholars instead of educating future citizens—leaving graduates with little serious exposure to the Declaration, the Constitution, and the moral logic of self-government. Stephen Haber, Stanford Professor of Political Science, History, and Economics, presses the discussion toward causes and incentives, setting up a debate about who is responsible for the drift and what reforms could realistically restore civic learning. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters:[00:00:26 – 00:04:11] Chapter 1: Setting the stakes—The Declaration at 250 and today's critiques Michael McConnell frames the episode around renewed skepticism of the Declaration's natural-rights claims—from progressive critiques focused on slavery and domination to post-liberal arguments against “abstract” rights.[00:04:11 – 00:06:54] Chapter 2: Berkowitz's opening—What the Declaration claims and why critics converge Peter Berkowitz restates the Declaration's core logic (equality, unalienable rights, consent, and the right to alter/abolish destructive government) and argues that left/right critiques increasingly overlap in their indictment of universal rights.[00:06:54 – 00:17:47] Chapter 3: Universities and the erosion of liberal education Berkowitz contends civic understanding is collapsing because colleges no longer ensure a shared, rigorous education in founding principles, constitutional traditions, and the broader intellectual inheritance needed for citizenship.[00:17:47 – 00:31:00] Chapter 4: From “critical” to “generous” thinking—Mapping the modern critiques Berkowitz argues that criticism without charitable interpretation becomes a “rage to criticize,” then traces postmodern progressive and post-liberal arguments (including Deneen and Vermeule) that reject the Declaration's rights framework and flirt with radical alternatives.[00:31:00 – 01:04:12] Chapter 5: Human rights, diplomacy, and reform—The Commission and a debate about university governance Berkowitz ties the Declaration to U.S. foreign policy via the UDHR and the Commission on Unalienable Rights, including its aims and controversies; Stephen Haber responds that boards, presidents, and provosts shape campus ideology and that governance-level changes could enable a revival of civic education. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

america history pandemic george floyd artificial intelligence human economics civil war indonesia republic commission constitution equality criticism human rights migration political science universities declaration mapping plato contemporary aristotle critical race theory critical thinking nietzsche declaration of independence karl marx global health systemic racism simplecast us constitution authoritarianism mike pompeo thomas aquinas countering foucault tad hoover institution heidegger berkowitz lacan us foreign policy john stuart mill derrida frankfurt school fourteenth amendment samuel taylor coleridge jeremy bentham natural rights stanford professor carl schmitt civic education deneen constitutionalism liberal education patrick deneen founding principles radical feminism thirteenth amendment on liberty unalienable rights michael mcconnell fifteenth amendment udhr catharine mackinnon peter berkowitz pam karlan critical legal studies stanford legal

What Did The Fourteenth Amendment Promise America?

The Hartmann Report

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 28, 2026 58:13

How Trump Turns Bigotry Into Official Government Policy and What Did The Fourteenth Amendment Promise America? America is a nation of immigrants, and we have been strengthened in every generation by the diversity of talent and humanity that have come here to participate in the American dream. We need comprehensive immigration reform to clean up our system, not a brutal regime that's literally killing people while it tears our nation apart. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

america american politics news elections debate diversity congress economics climate change ice democracy scotus immigrants ivanka trump bigotry fourteenth amendment thom hartmann comprehensive immigration reform

When ‘Equal Protection’ depends on who you are

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 26, 2026 57:05 Transcription Available

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – We all want to be treated justly, to have the laws equally applied. Well, not all of us, because there are some who seem to think they are more equal than others. While the Constitution does include an Equal Protection Clause, it's only in the Fourteenth Amendment and only applies to the states. The idea of equal protection, though, runs...

constitution fourteenth amendment equal protection equal protection clause

When ‘Equal Protection’ depends on who you are

THE CONSTITUTION STUDY

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 26, 2026 57:05 Transcription Available

constitution fourteenth amendment equal protection equal protection clause

THIS is the Difference Between Trump & EVERYONE Else! Trump Just Took Birthright Citizenship BACK to SCOTUS

#NEZNATION LIVE: Personal Branding 101

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 19, 2026 14:02

President Trump is now moving for an immediate rehearing at the United States Supreme Court over the birthright citizenship case after reports surfaced of billboards near the southern border advertising birthright citizenship-related maternity packages with “deliveries starting at $4,000.” Trump blasted the situation, declaring that American citizenship is not for sale and arguing that the Supreme Court must reconsider its ruling.The controversy comes after the Supreme Court ruled on June 30 that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Now Trump is pointing to the billboard scandal and birth tourism concerns as evidence that the ruling has opened the door to what he calls a massive citizenship scam.In this video, we break down Trump's full statement, what the billboard controversy means, what a Supreme Court rehearing would involve, why this issue is exploding politically, and why the fight over birthright citizenship may be far from over.Is American citizenship being exploited? Should SCOTUS rehear the case? And did nobody see this coming?Drop your thoughts in the comments.For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial (656) 218-0931 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to https://askchapter.org/nez✅ Reach out to me: https://bio.site/professornez✅ ORIGINAL MADE IN U.S.A 250TH AMERICA DESIGNS: https://professornez.myspreadshop.com/✅ Check out our Official Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@professornezclips▶ Support the Channel and Buy us a Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/professornezEducational Commentary & Original AnalysisThis channel presents educational, lecture-style analysis created by a university professor and educator. Content focuses on contextual examination, historical background, legal frameworks, and evidence-based analysis of widely reported events, public records, and institutional processes.The approach emphasizes academic methodology, media literacy, and source-driven interpretation rather than advocacy, persuasion, or real-time news reporting. Viewers are encouraged to consult primary sources and form independent conclusions.All content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, medical, or professional advice. Views expressed are solely those of the creator.This channel may include references or links to third-party websites or products for informational purposes. Some links may be affiliate links, which may generate a commission at no additional cost to the viewer.In this video expert Professor Nez analyzes and educates on what happened and why with fact based, data based, verified and researched expertise reporting.All original content is protected by copyright. Fair use applies where permitted by law.Category: News Analysis & Educational CommentaryMethodology: This report utilizes primary source verification and comparative analysis

united states american donald trump reach drop coffee supreme court views medicare scotus everyone else viewers united states supreme court birthright citizenship fourteenth amendment professor nez

Mark Simone Interviews Author Ann Coulter on Her Latest Article on Birthright Citizenship.

American Conservative University

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 16, 2026 15:32

Mark Simone Interviews Author Ann Coulter on Her Latest Article on Birthright Citizenship. The Mark Simone Show July 1, 2026 • 11 min Episode Description They talk about the Supreme Court blocking Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, which means if you're born in the U.S., you're a citizen, no matter your parents' status. They also get into how college campuses are pushing students to vote for progressive candidates. Article mentioned- https://anncoulter.com/2026/07/02/dred-scotus/ Dred SCOTUS by Ann Coulter July 2, 2026 Obviously, the Supreme Court's ruling on anchor babies in Trump v. Barbara is ridiculous. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with the Papist nut and the three witches, has apparently decided the “FREE MONEY” sign on our border was not good enough. We need to give the third world an even bigger incentive to flock here. Henceforth, we will lure illegal aliens with the guarantee of American citizenship for any kids they give birth to on U.S. soil. Welcome Hamas! (And you thought Democratic primaries were already wild!) Inasmuch as no one on TV seems to have bothered reading the opinions, here are a few highlights. 1) Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent is a tour de force. It will go down in history with Justice Benjamin Curtis's dissent in Dred Scott and Justice Frank Murphy's dissent in Korematsu. (It's also a good primer for snowbirds, who plan to avoid state taxes by moving to Florida, on the vital importance and clear legal meaning of “domicile.”) By contrast, Roberts's opinion for the court will go down with Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, finding that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination against transgender employees—a ruling that was so embarrassing it was immediately ignored by everyone, including Gorsuch. That was clear this week, when, for the fourth time since Bostock, the court rejected similar claims by transgenders. 2) I'm sorry to mention that, inasmuch as Gorsuch was on the right side of the anchor baby case. Which reminds me, could the conservatives confidently informing us that anchor babies are required by the constitution (Bill O'Reilly, John Yoo, The Wall Street Journal, etc.) cite a single other case with Roberts on one side and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the other, where Roberts was right? How about that terrific Obamacare ruling, deeply grounded in the text of the constitution? 3) Thomas's central point—appalling to liberals, but true nonetheless—is that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to overrule Dred Scott, which held that black Americans were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Black slaves and freedmen alike, Thomas writes, “were unambiguously Americans. They were not foreigners. They were not aliens. They owed no foreign allegiance.” He quotes Frederick Douglass's plea for the citizenship of blacks: “We address you not as aliens nor as exiles … We are Americans.” In response to Thomas's manifestly obvious point that the Fourteenth Amendment was “enacted … with the one pervading purpose of securing equal citizenship for the freed slaves,” the great legal scholar Justice Ketanji Jackson ripostes: “The teacher who scolds a student for bullying a classmate hopes the student learns the broader lesson of treating everyone with kindness, not just that one kid.” 3) In his 91-page dissent, Thomas cites 42 legal cases, 19 historical letters or diplomatic dispatches, 6 formal Attorney General opinions and 11 statutes, including The Civil Rights Act of 1866, The Expatriation Act of 1868 and the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802. All directly on point. This, Roberts calls “scant evidence.” Whereas he cites a mighty three cases for his majority opinion: an inapposite one from Britain; the opinion of a New York assistant vice chancellor in an 1844 inheritance dispute in New York (BIG, if true); and one, Wong Kim Ark—the “strongest support for today's decision,” as Alito put it—using dubious dicta from a wandering opinion that primarily relied on the parents having been “legally domiciled” in the U.S. when the child was born. Not to be confused with, “living here illegally.” (Or “wintering in Palm Beach.”) It's as if Roberts didn't realize the case was about kids born to illegal aliens. 5) Roberts's weirdest citation is to an 1872 letter from Attorney General George Williams describing Francois Heinrich, a child born to Austrian parents while they were “temporarily residing” in New York City, as having been “originally clothed with American nationality.”

State Constitutions and the Declaration of Independence

What Roman Mars Can Learn About Con Law

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 14, 2026 64:25

This episode highlights an often-missed story: the Declaration of Independence didn't just shape the U.S. Constitution—it directly shaped state constitutions, many of which echo its natural-rights language more explicitly than the federal charter. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick argues that reading state constitutional provisions through the Declaration can strengthen enforceable limits on government power. The conversation reframes the Declaration from anniversary rhetoric into a practical interpretive tool in living state constitutional law. Bolick traces a two-way influence between the Declaration and early state charters, pointing to founding-era texts like Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights as a roadmap for Jefferson's phrasing—and noting that later state constitutions continued to incorporate Declaration principles such as equality, popular sovereignty, and inalienable rights. He then connects those ideas to modern doctrine, arguing that state courts can treat natural-rights provisions as meaningful constraints (or interpretive “prisms”) rather than mere preambles, with recent state supreme court decisions illustrating how the Declaration's ideals can translate into concrete protections today. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: [00:00:26] Chapter 1 — McConnell's framing: the “hidden” constitutional story in state charters The host introduces how state constitutions borrow explicitly from the Declaration and why that matters for modern rights protection. [00:05:59] Chapter 2 — Bolick's thesis: an “enduring symbiosis” between the Declaration and state constitutions Bolick argues the Declaration's influence on state constitutional text and interpretation is deeper and more direct than its influence on the U.S. Constitution. [00:10:46] Chapter 3 — Origins and transmission: Virginia's 1776 rights language and state constitution “laboratories” Bolick explains the two-way borrowing between early state constitutions and the Declaration, including George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights. [00:27:57] Chapter 4 — From principles to doctrine: natural-rights clauses as enforceable limits (with cases) Bolick lays out how courts have used natural-rights provisions as substantive protections or interpretive tools, citing key state cases and modern disputes. [00:46:34] Chapter 5 — Ford's recorded response + Bolick rebuttal: state power, natural rights, and the limits of the frame Ford praises state constitutionalism but complicates the natural-rights narrative; Bolick responds, emphasizing both self-government and enforceable individual rights. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

rights origins constitution declaration thomas jefferson benjamin franklin declaration of independence mcconnell pursuit of happiness john adams simplecast james madison federalism george mason fourteenth amendment arizona supreme court natural rights state constitutions equal protection bolick michael mcconnell ninth amendment clint bolick pam karlan stanford legal

Who Gets To Be a Citizen?

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 13, 2026 48:58

The Supreme Court narrowly upheld birthright citizenship in the 5-4 decision of Trump v. Barbara. But the debate over who is granted citizenship — and who can be stripped of it — is far from over. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

donald trump supreme court citizens immigration simplecast birthright citizenship fourteenth amendment japanese american internment

What the Fourteenth Amendment Protects

american americans supreme court letters federal declaration blue sky reaction ronald reagan black americans protects opponents us constitution fourteenth amendment dred scott sandford robert bork thirteenth amendment

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 10, 2026 8:42

July 9, 2026On July 9, 1868, Americans changed the US Constitution for the 14th time, The Fourteenth Amendment brought the principles of the Declaration to life, requiring the Federal government to protect the equal rights of all American men, The Thirteenth Amendment prohibited slavery on the basis of race, but did not guarantee equality for Black Americans, The Fourteenth Amendment took on the Dred Scott v Sandford decision and provided that all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US, It also overturned the idea that democracy was created at the state level, forbidding states from making laws that were discriminatory, The principles of the Fourteenth Amendment were behind civil rights decisions of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, Opponents objected, and called for “originalism,” an idea promoted by Robert Bork who was nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan, Reaction to the nomination recognized the importance of the Fourteenth Amendment to equality.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

From the Courthouse Steps: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.

vice president supreme court ethics fellow west virginia civil rights title ix religious liberties courthouse education policy fourteenth amendment equal protection clause senior legal fellow

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 10, 2026 32:01 Transcription Available

In the consolidated cases Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Supreme Court held that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states or schools from determining sports eligibility based on biological sex. Join us for a Courthouse Steps webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what it may mean for Title IX, equal protection doctrine, school athletics, and future litigation over sex-based classifications.Featuring:Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy CenterSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Senior Legal Fellow, Defending Education

From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Barbara

united states university donald trump law professor supreme court immigration courthouse trump v fourteenth amendment solicitor general in trump minnesota law school richmond school

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 9, 2026 45:42 Transcription Available

In Trump v. Barbara, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, even if their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country, as they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and the separate opinions.Featuring:Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawEric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney GeneralProf. Ilan Wurman, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School

From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Barbara

united states university donald trump law professor supreme court immigration courthouse trump v fourteenth amendment solicitor general in trump minnesota law school richmond school

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 9, 2026 45:42 Transcription Available

In Trump v. Barbara, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, even if their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country, as they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and the separate opinions. Featuring: Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General Prof. Ilan Wurman, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School

Legal News for Thurs 7/9 - SAVE Database Weaponized Against Voter Rolls, DOJ Threatens State Election Officials and ex-Olympians Bogus DC Reflecting Pool Charges

Minimum Competence

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 9, 2026 8:34

This Day in Legal History: The Fourteenth Amendment Is RatifiedOn July 9, 1868, South Carolina and Louisiana became the final two states needed to push the Fourteenth Amendment over the three-quarters threshold, and with their votes the amendment was ratified into the Constitution. It is, by almost any measure, the most consequential of the Reconstruction amendments and arguably the most important addition to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights.The amendment was written to answer the central question left open by the Civil War and the abolition of slavery: what did freedom actually mean, and who was entitled to it? Its first section does an enormous amount of work in a single sentence. It establishes birthright citizenship—declaring that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of both the nation and their state. It then forbids any state from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens, from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying any person the equal protection of the laws. Those three clauses—privileges or immunities, due process, and equal protection—became the constitutional text on which vast stretches of modern American law are built.The historical purpose was direct. The framers of the amendment, led in the House by John Bingham, wanted to overrule Dred Scott, which had held that Black Americans could not be citizens, and to constitutionalize the civil rights protections Congress had already tried to enact by statute—putting them beyond the reach of any future hostile Congress or Southern legislature. They understood that emancipation without citizenship and equal protection would be a hollow victory, and they wrote a guarantee that applied against the states, not just the federal government.The significance of July 9, 1868 is hard to overstate, because so much of what we argue about today runs directly through this text. The Equal Protection Clause is the basis of Brown v. Board of Education and school desegregation, of Loving v. Virginia striking down bans on interracial marriage, and of Obergefell recognizing marriage equality. The Due Process Clause became the vehicle for incorporating most of the Bill of Rights against the states, so that free speech, free exercise, and protections for the criminally accused bind state governments too. And the Citizenship Clause is the reason that birthright citizenship is a constitutional guarantee rather than a policy preference—as the Supreme Court reaffirmed just this past term. When you hear debates about who counts as a citizen, what process the government owes a person before it takes something from them, or whether a law treats people equally, you are hearing an argument about the amendment ratified on this date.A federal judge in Florida has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to keep giving four Republican-led states—Florida, Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio—access to a federal database those states use to check whether registered voters are citizens. The order, from U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II in Pensacola, lets the states continue using the system while the underlying legal fight plays out.The database is called SAVE—Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements—a federal system historically used to verify immigration status for benefits. After a revamp last year, it became far more powerful for election purposes: users could search many records at once, and it exposed individuals' Social Security numbers. Several Republican-led states began comparing their voter rolls against SAVE and canceling the registrations of people the database flagged as noncitizens. The problem is what happens when the database is wrong or out of date—people who are in fact citizens can get flagged and purged.That risk is exactly why this ruling sits in tension with another one. Just weeks earlier, on June 22, a different federal judge in Washington, D.C., restricted broader use of the database, warning that relying on it could result in eligible voters being wrongly stripped from the rolls. So you now have two federal courts pointing in different directions—one worried about wrongful purges and limiting the database's use, and one ordering DHS to keep the spigot open for these four states. When trial courts split like this, the disagreement typically has to be resolved higher up, and it means the rules can differ depending on which state and which courtroom you're standing in.The significance is that this is a live fight over the machinery of voter-roll maintenance heading into a midterm election year. There's a genuine and legitimate interest in keeping noncitizens off the voter rolls—but there's an equally real risk that a blunt, error-prone matching process disenfranchises actual citizens who then have to fight to get back on. This ruling tilts toward giving states the verification tool; the D.C. ruling tilts toward protecting against wrongful removals. Watch the appellate courts, because the boundary between list maintenance and unlawful voter purging is about to get drawn more sharply.US judge orders four states be given access to citizenship data for voter checks | ReutersIn a closely related development, the Justice Department has sent letters to all fifty states warning that state and local election officials could face criminal prosecution if they allow noncitizens to remain on their voter rolls. The letters, from Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Department's Civil Rights Division, give officials just five days to respond with a plan to comply. The federal government does have statutes on the books aimed at protecting the integrity of elections and barring noncitizens from voting, and the letters invoke several of them. But the ordinary way these laws work is that you prosecute a person who actually votes illegally, or who knowingly facilitates fraud. What's unusual here is the target: the letters put state and local election administrators—the people who maintain the rolls—on notice that they personally could be charged. That reframes routine election administration as potential criminal exposure for the officials doing it.Think about the position this puts an election official in. Maintaining accurate voter rolls is genuinely hard—people move, die, naturalize, and occasionally register in error—and every state already has processes for it. Now imagine being told by the U.S. Department of Justice that if the federal government later decides your rolls were inadequate, you could be a criminal defendant, and you have five days to send in a compliance plan. Even if few or no prosecutions ever materialize, the threat itself is designed to change behavior—to push officials toward more aggressive purging out of fear of personal liability. Critics call that coercion; the Department frames it as enforcement.The significance is about federal pressure on the decentralized American election system. Elections in this country are run by states and localities, deliberately, so that no single national authority controls the vote. Democratic officials in states like Michigan pushed back hard, noting they've already taken extensive steps to ensure only eligible voters can vote. The letters, arriving alongside the SAVE database fight, are part of a coordinated push ahead of the midterms, and they raise a serious question about the line between legitimate federal enforcement of election laws and using the threat of prosecution to lean on the officials who administer them.US Justice Department tells state officials they could be prosecuted over noncitizen voting | ReutersAnd in a very different kind of case, a former Olympic canoe racer, David Hearn, pleaded not guilty in D.C. Superior Court to a felony charge of deliberately damaging the recently renovated Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Hearn, who is 67 and competed in three Summer Olympics, entered his plea through an attorney at his first court appearance, and his lawyers have described the prosecution as an abuse of power built on what they call a “concocted narrative.”The Reflecting Pool sits on the National Mall between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument and had just undergone a roughly $16 million renovation. Hearn has said he was stopped by National Guard troops and U.S. Park Police and detained for about five hours after pausing at the pool during a 64-mile bike ride in June. He was later indicted on a single felony count of property destruction. The top federal prosecutor for D.C., U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, said six other people were arrested on misdemeanor charges connected to damage at the same site.The legal question worth watching is the gap between the charge and the conduct. Property-destruction law generally requires proof that the defendant intentionally caused the damage, and a felony charge usually turns on the dollar value of that damage. Hearn's defense is essentially that the government has manufactured intent and seriousness out of an innocent encounter—that a man pausing on a bike ride has been turned into a felony defendant. The judge apparently agreed there was little flight or danger risk: Hearn was released without court supervision pending an August 5 status hearing, which tells you something about how the court currently views the threat he poses.The significance here is less about one damaged pool and more about the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Deciding whom to charge, and whether to charge a felony versus a misdemeanor versus nothing at all, is one of the most powerful and least reviewable choices in the legal system. When critics call a prosecution politically motivated or an abuse of power, they're pointing at that discretion. Whether this case is a legitimate property-crime prosecution (it isn't) or an overreach (it is) is exactly what the coming proceedings will test—and it's a useful reminder that the same charging power that holds genuine wrongdoers accountable can also be aimed in ways that raise real fairness concerns.Former US Olympian pleads not guilty in Reflecting Pool vandalism case | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

united states american education house washington olympic games michigan ohio elections board loving congress indiana reflecting iowa supreme court south carolina republicans rights louisiana civil war maintaining southern democratic pool constitution property olympians deciding critics voters charges social security homeland security black americans national guard reconstruction databases summer olympics threatens justice department dhs pensacola weaponized bogus hearn national mall lincoln memorial superior court state elections obergefell fourteenth amendment washington monument dred scott entitlements us justice department civil rights division harmeet dhillon election officials voter rolls legalnews equal protection clause park police david hearn due process clause john bingham

Supreme Court Narrowly Passes Reading Comprehension Section

Above the Law - Thinking Like a Lawyer

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 8, 2026 29:54

But Sam Alito still has a job. ----- The Fourteenth Amendment lays out birthright citizenship in clear terms. Every subsequent legal challenge and all the scholarly work on the subject -- until about a year ago -- agreed on how to read it. Yet, the Supreme Court still managed to split on the question, with a 6-3 decision knocking down Donald Trump's executive order purporting to overturn the key constitutional provision -- that was more accurately 5-4, with Kavanaugh agreeing with the result on other grounds, but joining the dissent in erasing the Fourteenth Amendment. Or maybe it was 6-3 with an asterisk, because Neil Gorsuch went rogue, mostly agreeing with birthright citizenship in the only scenario the Trump administration really wanted to snuff out. Chief Justice Roberts also took his burning desire to be seen as the middle of the Court comically too far, authoring contradictory opinions back-to-back. And Sam Alito did not retire, despite reports. And in Biglaw, we continue to wonder where all the raises are.

donald trump court supreme court brett kavanaugh john roberts neil gorsuch big law narrowly fourteenth amendment reading comprehension

From the Courthouse Steps: Wolford v. Lopez

partner hawaii supreme court lopez second amendment courthouse fourteenth amendment wolford senior legal fellow

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 8, 2026 31:36 Transcription Available

In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court held that Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. In a 6-3 decision, the majority reasoned that the restrictions fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment and that Hawaii’s proffered historical analogues did not support the constitutionality of its new default rule.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Wolford may mean for Second Amendment litigation.Featuring:Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American FreedomJohn Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC

Intended Consequences: Race and Retribution

Prosecuting Donald Trump

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2026 57:09

Mary and Andrew start with a deeper dive into the Supreme Court's decision to allow the removal of Temporary Protected Status designations from over 330,000 immigrants from Haiti and Syria — a consequential ruling that affects TPS holders well beyond those who brought the case, leaving over a million people vulnerable to removal. As Andrew notes, this case was based on two claims: one being a statutory challenge that DHS didn't follow the procedures set out by Congress, and the other a constitutional equal protection claim that this TPS status removal was “motivated in part by race” — both of which were struck down 6-3. Then, a look at Trump's latest retribution efforts including the heavy sentences doled out over a protest that ended in a shooting outside the ICE Prairieland Detention Center inTexas one year ago; a felony indictment of former Olympian David Hearn for allegedly tearing part of the liner of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool; and former CIA Director John Brennan going on offense to challenge the DOJ's investigation into him. Plus, Mary and Andrew analyze the DOJ's response to a “show cause” order to unredact some of the Epstein files in a lawsuit filed by journalist Katie Phang. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

jesus christ ai president donald trump mexico law race war ms fire elections elon musk alabama barack obama racism judge congress iran executives middle east legal decision decisions supreme court lawyers ice consequences venezuela mississippi new mexico immigration judgement attorney syria haiti olympians framework epstein election day rhode island denial lawsuit appeal el salvador msnbc declaration jeffrey epstein verdict federal reserve allies scotus firing attorney generals doj executive orders ftc sexual abuse international relations data centers judicial 2020 election jd vance protesters legislative rnc avoidance litigation indictment dhs nomination retribution intended ballots district attorney prosecution mar a lago simplecast iran war religious freedom federal trade commission defamation refusal gerrymandering grand jury air pollution tro tps lining federal judges iran deal supreme court decisions memorandum xai birthright citizenship lincoln memorial republican national committee fourth amendment john brennan department of justice executive branch 14th amendment appeals court us border fourteenth amendment clean air act lisa cook cia director presidential immunity mail in ballots temporary protected status catholic diocese nonpartisan 4th amendment cia director john brennan judicial branch judicial review executive actions legislative branch andrew weissmann temporary restraining order katie phang david hearn mary mccord prosecuting donald trump main justice alabama election

Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship Is ABSURD, Stephen Miller Goes NUCLEAR On Supreme Court ‘This is SUICIDE', PragerU- What Is Birthright Citizenship?

American Conservative University

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2026 23:58

Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship Is ABSURD, Stephen Miller Goes NUCLEAR On Supreme Court ‘This is SUICIDE…', PragerU- What Is Birthright Citizenship? Stephen Miller Goes NUCLEAR On Supreme Court In SAVAGE On-Air Rant: ‘This is SUICIDE…' Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship Is ABSURD What Is Birthright Citizenship? 5-Minute Videos. PragerU Stephen Miller Goes NUCLEAR On Supreme Court In SAVAGE On-Air Rant: ‘This is SUICIDE…' Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/eiWw3kGOnGY?si=J6BwFI2xwwAUNeg1 Benny Johnson 6.1M subscribers 89,853 views Jul 1, 2026 Stephen Miller went off If you want to help support independent journalism, become a Member: / @bennyjohnson FOLLOW BENNY ON SOCIALS: https://www.bennyjohnson.com/follow CHECK OUT OUR MERCH: https://shop.bennyjohnson.com/ Sign up for The Benny Newsletter: https://www.bennyjohnson.com/newsletter SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST https://www.bennyjohnson.com/thebenny... Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship Is ABSURD https://youtu.be/lApoF5aM-lw?si=09dzhevwAZth2PdK The American Conservative 13.3K subscribers 13,176 views Jul 1, 2026 This is a segment from a longer conversation between Andrew Day and Ann Coulter recorded May 20, 2026: • Ann Coulter Talks Massie's Loss, Rubio vs.... Follow Day and Coulter on X. Andrew Day: https://x.com/AKDay89 Ann Coulter: https://x.com/AnnCoulter A new video by The American Conservative Magazine, a publication of the American Ideas Institute. ------ ► Support The American Conservative's Mission to reclaim "Main Street" Conservatism https://www.theamericanconservative.c... Follow The American Conservative on Social Media: Twitter - / amconmag Facebook - / the.american.conservative Instagram – / amconmag YouTube – / amconmag ◎ Subscribe to the The American Conservative's Podcasts" https://www.theamericanconservative.c... What Is Birthright Citizenship? 5-Minute Videos. PragerU Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/MkgspNujMHg?si=eqfXyxJFQHksstAQ Do children born on U.S. soil automatically become American citizens? Many claim the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that they do. Are they right? Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, confronts this question head-on. PragerU 3.45M subscribers 5,880 views Premiered Jun 30, 2026 5-Minute Videos Transcript: What Is Birthright Citizenship? Presented by Amy Swearer Does the Constitution grant citizenship to anyone born in the United States? Even the children of people who've entered the country illegally? Or the children of foreign tourists who owe our country no allegiance? That's the question underlying the controversial issue of birthright citizenship. Many people today take it for granted that the answer is yes: if you're born on American soil, you're an American citizen. Period. End of issue. But is that what the Constitution says? Let's first look at the text of that document, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment. It reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...” Case closed, right? Not so fast. The key phrase here is, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” — it creates a second condition for birthright citizenship beyond merely being born on American soil. But it also raises another question: who is born subject to U.S. jurisdiction? To answer that question, we need some historical context. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, just three years after the end of the Civil War. Its purpose was to rectify the infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the Court declared that black Americans were not and could never be citizens. Even after slavery was abolished in 1865, Dred Scott technically remained the law of the land. Black Americans were left in limbo—they were no longer slaves, but they still were not citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment resolved the issue, once and for all. These newly freed slaves and their descendants were certainly born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This had been their home for generations. If they were not American citizens, to which other nation did they still belong? So while the Fourteenth Amendment resolved the issue as it related to race, its authors would have been shocked to learn that we now interpret these words to make citizens of virtually anyone born on U.S. soil, under all circumstances. As Yale Law Professor William C. Robinson explained in his 1875 legal treatise, the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship only to those “born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States”—a condition that requires, at minimum, lawful permanent residence in this country. This was also the original understanding of the federal government. In 1885, for example, the State Department rejected the citizenship claim of a man named Richard Greisser. Yes, Greisser had been born in Ohio eighteen years earlier, but his German parents never intended to stay in the United States. They returned with their son to Germany shortly after his birth. Because Greisser's parents did not owe the United States political allegiance, their son wasn't born subject to its jurisdiction, at least not within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause. Similarly, in 1890, the Justice Department considered the citizenship claim of a child born to one Mary Devereaux, a pregnant Irish woman being held on a ship in New York Harbor. While awaiting immigration approval, Devereaux left the ship for medical treatment and subsequently gave birth in a New York hospital. Authorities later denied her immigration application. Because Devereaux wasn't eligible for lawful admission to the U.S., her U.S.-born daughter was not recognized as a U.S. citizen. Both mother and child were sent back to Ireland. The Supreme Court addressed the question of birthright citizenship in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong was born and raised in San Francisco, the son of Chinese immigrants. In 1895, after a short trip to China, Wong returned to the U.S., only to be detained by authorities and threatened with deportation. Wong sued, arguing that he was an American citizen by birth. The Supreme Court agreed. Access the full transcript here...

No Occasion for Despair

Plodcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2026 15:59

IT'S HERE! Pre-Order the 4th installment of the Ashtown Burial Series at ashtownburials.com.In this episode, Douglas Wilson considers the Supreme Court's birthright-citizenship decision and possible paths forward, examines the sin of making and worshiping the golden calf, and reviews Kurt Vonnegut's practical writing advice in Pity the Reader. For more from Doug, subscribe to Canon+: https://canonplus.com/

S E1331: In Class with Carr, Ep. 330: “Belonging Beyond 1776: The Semiquincentennial Blues”

This Is Karen Hunter

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2026 144:57

As the United States notes the 250th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence, it confronts its deepest crisis of structural political integrity since its Civil War and Reconstruction. The ritual corridor between Juneteenth and July 4 exposes the widening gap between US founding mythologies and its lived political realities. This year's observance arrives amid the Trump administration's transformation of the government's America250 commemoration into a religio-fascist, cult of personality-driven “Freedom 250” spectacle, while the Supreme Court's 6-3/5-4 Birthright Citizenship ruling in Trump v. Barbara saw four justices prepared to abandon the Reconstruction/Second Founding itself by effectively rewriting the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Taken together with renewed efforts to restrict immigration, weaken the administrative state, and redefine citizenship, these developments raise the central question of this year's semiquincentennial: what becomes of a polity built on competing definitions of belonging when its white nationalist-fueled authority permanently fractures? Using the Africana Studies framework, today's session continues the work of reframing the semi-quincentennial not as a celebration of 1776 but as an opportunity to rethink time, citizenship, and political community through the last 250 years of African self-determination. Provoked in part by the competing constitutional visions of Black Justices Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas, we examine citizenship as both shield and struggle, contrasting narratives of inclusion, fealty, and liberation. From the Negro Convention Movement and Reconstruction to today's battles over birthright citizenship, the SAVE Act, and the policing of bodies and borders, we ask whether the US is entering a post-white nationalist era of rebirth or the final stage of an empire unable to survive its founding contradictions. By tracing Africana Governance work in fifty-year intervals, we use this symbolic anniversary to connect movements, rituals, institutions, and ideas that reveal far deeper meaning than any official national narrative,, laying the foundation for the remaining part of this year's continuing exploration of liberation, governance, memory, and self-determination.Are you a member of Knarrative? If not, we invite you to join our community today by signing up at: https://www.knarrative.com. As a Knarrative subscriber, you'll gain immediate access to Knubia, our growing community of teachers, learners, thinkers, doers, artists, and creators. Together, we're making a generational commitment to our collective interests, work, and responsibilities. Join us at https://www.knarrative.com and download the Knubia app through your app store or by visiting https://community.knarrative.com.To shop Go to:TheGlobalMajorityMore from us:Follow on X: https://x.com/knarrative_https://x.com/inclasswithcarrFollow on Instagram IG / knarrative IG/ inclasswithcarr Follow Dr. Carr: https://www.drgregcarr.comhttps://x.com/AfricanaCarrFollow Karen Hunter: https://karenhuntershow.comhttps://x.com/karenhunter IG / karenhuntershowSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Birthright Citizenship and the Future of the Fourteenth Amendment

The WorldView in 5 Minutes

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2026 33:17

Stanford's Fred Smith examines the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision, its historical roots in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the questions the Court leaves unresolved. --- The Fourteenth Amendment opens with a simple constitutional promise: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. In a closely divided Supreme Court decision, that understanding of birthright citizenship is once again tested through competing readings of text, history, and precedent. In this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Fred Smith, a leading scholar of the federal courts, joins Pam Karlan to examine the Court's ruling in Trump v. Barbara and the history behind the Citizenship Clause. The discussion traces the Clause to Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, and to the Reconstruction-era effort to overturn it, as well as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood to affirm birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil. The discussion highlights deeper disagreements over how that history should shape constitutional meaning today. Smith and Karlan explore tensions between originalist approaches, reliance on precedent, and questions about congressional authority over citizenship. At stake is not only the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the broader question of who the Constitution recognizes as part of the American political community—and who gets to decide. Links: Fred Smith >>> Stanford Law School Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

united states american donald trump court supreme court stanford constitution black americans brett kavanaugh reconstruction clause simplecast federal court samuel alito sonia sotomayor neil gorsuch immigration law birthright citizenship stanford law school justice thomas fourteenth amendment dred scott sandford fred smith equal protection clause thirteenth amendment wong kim ark civil rights law english common law statutory interpretation pam karlan stanford legal

“Young Washington” movie in theaters tonight; Clarence Thomas: Birthright citizenship devalues what it means to be American citizen; Ethiopian Christian convert from Islam attacked and forced to flee

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 3, 2026

It's Friday, July 3rd, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Ethiopian Christian convert from Islam attacked and forced to flee As a child in Gawo Kebe, Ethiopia, Taha Dinka faithfully attended the mosque and adhered to his community's Islamic beliefs. He never imagined his life would ever take a different direction, reports International Christian Concern. In 2019, Dinka heard the Gospel and decided to follow Jesus. He said, “When I accepted Christ, I felt peace in my life. I believed God had rescued me from darkness.” However, the decision that brought him hope also opened the door for rejection, threats, and persecution. Soon after his conversion, Dinka began facing strong opposition from those closest to him because of his faith in Christ. Dinka said, “People I loved turned against me, and some even told me I had betrayed my family and my religion. Others warned me that I would suffer or die if I continued following Christ.” Christian converts from Islam in Muslim-majority areas often face violence and even death threats. In August 2025, Dinka said, “I was violently attacked and forcefully removed from my home because I had refused to renounce Christianity. The attacks left me injured and traumatized. I was beaten because I would not deny Jesus. At that moment, I realized my life was truly in danger.” He was forced to flee in search of safety. In Matthew 10:22, Jesus said, "You will be hated by everyone because of Me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” House Speaker Johnson puts SAVE Act in budget reconciliation bill Here in the United States, On Wednesday. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he is aiming to push the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE America Act, through a third budget reconciliation bill, reports NewsNation. Johnson's remarks came shortly after President Trump canceled a signing ceremony for a sweeping bipartisan housing package, saying he will not sign the legislation until the Senate passes the voter ID bill. The SAVE America Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and the presentation of an ID to cast a ballot. The bill passed the House, but has stalled in the Senate, where Democrats have vowed to oppose it, leaving it short of the votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has repeatedly dismissed Trump's calls to eliminate or reform the filibuster in order to pass the bill. Johnson talked to the president about adding the SAVE America Act to the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA so that the entire bill including the funding of the troops and the SAVE America Act would only need a simple majority vote. Here's Speaker Johnson at the Wednesday press conference. JOHNSON: “The SAVE America Act, as passed in February unanimously by all Republicans -- and that's components of the proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter ID when you show up to vote, that will be merged onto the [National Defense Authorization Act] and transmitted to the Senate as one bill. That's the most efficient, effective way to do it.” Call your two Senators at 202-224-3121 and urge them, whether they are Democrat or Republican, to support the National Defense Authorization Act which has the SAVE America Act added to it. Clarence Thomas: Birthright citizenship devalues what it means to be American citizen In a lengthy dissent, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took the majority to task for interpreting the Constitution to mean that citizenship is automatically conferred on anyone born in the United States, regardless of the legal status of the parents, Thomas argued that the ruling “devalues” what it means to be an American citizen. In the 6-3 decision on June 30th, the majority held that an executive order President Donald Trump issued on the first day of his second term violated the Constitution. The order directed that only children born on American soil to legal residents are automatically citizens of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” In his dissent, Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, noted as Trump previously argued, that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. It was in direct response to the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision of 1857, which held that blacks were not citizens. Thomas wrote, “Both the Civil Rights Act [of 1866] and the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States.” He added, “Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority,” Under Trump's proposal, birthright citizenship would be limited to those with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Babies born to temporary visitors or people who entered the country illegally would not be citizens at birth, reports NBC News. Young Washington movie in theaters tonight On the cusp of America's 250th birthday tomorrow, Angel Studios* and Wonder Project release the movie “Young Washington” nationwide tonight. Watch the trailer. It follows the early life of George Washington as he transforms from an ambitious, awkward youth into a military commander. Facing class barriers, he secures a job surveying the Ohio Valley, only to stumble into the bloody triggers of the French and Indian War. Directed by Jon Erwin, who also produced the House of David TV series, the historical drama explores Washington's steep climb into Virginia's upper crust. William Franklyn-Miller, the 22-year-old British actor, portrays George Washington, Ben Kingsley portrays Robert Dinwiddie, and Kelsey Grammer portrays Thomas Fairfax. When setbacks shake George's faith in a kind, loving God, he gets angry. He tells his mother, “Providence placed me here. Why? For me to fail?” Focus on the Family says that Mary Washington, George's mother, serves up one of the movie's best lines. She says, “Failure is the tutor sent by God. If you don't learn from it, you fail twice. If you do learn from it, you've earned wisdom.” After George improbably survives a disastrous battle, a Native American chief—one who fought alongside the French—demands to meet George. His own warriors had George in their sights repeatedly. He claims they “never miss.” And yet, somehow, George stands before him, uninjured. The Indian chief tells him, “The Creator chose you. You have been shielded by the Spirit.” (Get the booklet entitled The Bulletproof George Washington by David Barton) Shortly thereafter, George shows up in Virginia Lt. Gov. Robert Dinwiddie's office with a bullet hole in his hat and a well-earned reputation for surviving impossible situations. Listen to the scene from the “Young Washington” movie. DINWIDDIE: “What happened, Washington? All those bullet holes in your jacket? How are you alive?” WASHINGTON: “I don't know.” Proverbs 16:9 says, "A man's heart plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps". The movie, Young Washington, dramatizes the events leading up to the French and Indian War, including the war's initial bloody triggers. PluggedIn.com warns that the film is not suitable for young children because there's plenty of fighting, shooting and chopping. And while none of it is particularly bloody or gory, it may come as a shock for those expecting a gentler “Christian” film. *Note: Angel Studios is owned by the Mormons also known as the “Church” of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Worldview cautions our listeners to remember that Mormons teach a false gospel and an unbiblical worldview. So, please be discerning in the viewing of any Angel Studios productions. 15-year-old listener from Eswatini, Africa sounds off Yesterday, 21 Worldview listeners took the time to send me an email about what they enjoy about this newscast. I'll be sharing their emails throughout this month. If you are one of the 21 people who wrote me, thank you! Eli McSeveney, a 15-year-old in Eswatini, Africa, bordered by South Africa and Mozambique, wrote me at Adam@TheWorldview.com. He said, “We listen to The Worldview in 5 Minutes every day, mid-morning, when we take a break from our homeschool over a cup of tea. I love that I can trust the facts you give, unlike CNN. But my favorite part is right at the end, when you urge us to ‘Seize the day for Jesus Christ!' “Quinn, age 13, said, ‘I love how Mr. Adam McManus addresses the transgender issue. He says a man, who is ‘pretending to be woman.' And the regular updates on the persecution of Christians throughout the world is eye opening.' “And Bianca, my mom, said, ‘Thank you for your team's faithfulness in bringing us truth. We find that you help us make sense of the news, and we feel hopeful instead of distraught. And thank you for the Bible verses that shed light on how to interpret what is going on.'” 7 Worldview listeners gave $800 yesterday Yesterday, 7 Worldview listeners stepped up to the plate and invested their treasure to ensure that The Worldview stays on the air for another 365 days. Our thanks to Jason in Fairbanks, Alaska and Steven in Jacksonville, Florida – both of whom gave $50. We're grateful to God for Janice in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Susan in Hoyt, Kansas – both of whom gave $100. And we appreciate the generosity of Samuel in Fellsmere, Florida and Jeremy in Swansea, Wales -- both of whom gave $150 as well as Linda in Hanahan, South Carolina who gave $200. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please. (drum roll sound effect) $2,562. (sound effect of people cheering) In the first three days of our month-long fundraiser, we are seriously behind! We need to raise $9,888 by 12 midnight tonight, Friday, July 3rd – when a lot of people are on vacation -- to get back on track toward our $123,500 finish line come July 31st. I've got 2 brainstorms. First, would you consider being one of 30 listeners to make a donation, no matter how small? Whether it's $5 or $500, give what you feel the Lord has placed on your heart. Second, if the Lord has blessed you financially, would you be open to being one of 5 people to give a one-time gift of $1,000? Go to TheWorldview.com, click on Give, select the dollar amount, and make sure to click on the “recurring” button if that's your wish. This Christian newscast does not bow to our politically correct culture. We champion the truth and a Biblical worldview. That is why you love it! Invest in it today so that this newscast can continue. Again, go to TheWorldview.com, click on Give. Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, July 3rd, in the year of our Lord 2026. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

united states america god jesus christ american family spotify donald trump movies church lord babies spirit bible house washington state americans british french young gospel africa christians creator christianity failure philadelphia focus pennsylvania theater south africa indian facing biblical cnn proverbs alaska invest south carolina kansas republicans muslims democrats id civil war islam senate native americans wales constitution google play senators generations providence jacksonville mormon forced directed south dakota ethiopia islamic gov app store drum convert george washington amazon music blacks ethiopian nbc news seize flee attacked worldview in matthew mozambique clarence thomas swansea latter day saints civil rights act fairbanks neil gorsuch hoyt birthright citizenship kelsey grammer ben kingsley ndaa american citizens national defense authorization act house speaker mike johnson eswatini newsnation indian wars fourteenth amendment dred scott ohio valley mary washington dinka this christian jon erwin under trump house speaker johnson virginia lt pluggedin hanahan

Today's Poll Question: Should U.S. citizenship require allegiance - or just being born here?

The Smerconish Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 3, 2026 11:25

Today's Poll Question at Smerconish.com: Should U.S. citizenship require allegiance or just being born here? The Supreme Court reaffirmed birthright citizenship, but Michael argues the legal ruling doesn't end the policy debate. He explains why he believes the Court correctly interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment while asking whether automatic citizenship based solely on birthplace remains the right approach. Drawing on international comparisons, Justice Samuel Alito's dissent, the naturalization process, and his own experience speaking at a citizenship ceremony, Michael explores whether American citizenship should be rooted in allegiance, consent, and commitment—or continue to be granted simply by birth on U.S. soil. Listen here, then vote! And be sure to rate, review and share this podcast! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

american drawing court supreme court scotus citizenship require allegiance simplecast samuel alito birthright citizenship fourteenth amendment poll question smerconish should u

Defying Reason - Ep 26-260

The Kevin Jackson Show

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 2, 2026 38:40

[X] SB – Scott Jennings about America under attackThe Constitution isn't a scratch-off lottery ticket. You don't accidentally win citizenship because your mom's contractions beat TSA.[X] SB – Part 2Some people read the Fourteenth Amendment like it's a promotional flyer: Congratulations! Free citizenship! No purchase necessary."The Founders wrote a Constitution. Today, some people read it like it's a coupon.Given these stats, it's no wonder people want to drop anchor babies in America.In ONE STATE they matched SNAP records with Vehicle registrations and found 14,000 with luxury cars 3 Bentleys 3 Ferraris 11 Lamborghinis 59 Maseratis 41 Porsches 244 Alfa Romeos 306 Land Rovers 2,098 Teslas. 3,636 Lexuses, 2,560 Mercedes 1,914 BMWsFor a country we're constantly told is collapsing under the weight of racism, capitalism, climate change, gluten, and mean tweets... there sure are a lot of people trying to get in.Nobody's advertising:"Vacation in North Korea. Stay for the freedom."Nobody's saying,"Honey, book that emergency flight to Somalia. The baby's due Thursday!"If America is such a horrible place, why is there an entire global industry dedicated to getting American citizenship?There are consultants.Lawyers.Travel agencies.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Georgia Politics: Rick Jackson, Jon Ossoff, Mike Collins & SCOTUS Decisions

Peach Pundit Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 2, 2026 67:14

America turns 250, and Georgia politics is not taking the holiday week off. Scot Turner and Buzz Brockway break down the latest in the Georgia governor's race, including Rick Jackson's push for Republican unity, the lingering divide with Burt Jones, Shelley Winter's endorsement, and the Jackson campaign's increasingly sharp social-media game against Keisha Lance Bottoms. They also revisit the Georgia special session and Scot's conversation with Lt. Gov. nominee Greg Dolezal about the election-bill compromise, Senate negotiations, and how quickly assumptions can change under the Gold Dome. Then, the conversation turns to Jon Ossoff's opening attack on Mike Collins over former chief of staff Brandon Phillips, whether that message will stick with voters, and the broader fight for Georgia's U.S. Senate seat. Finally, Scot and Buzz dig into the biggest recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions through a Georgia lens: campaign-finance coordination, the future of Georgia political parties and PACs, girls' sports and the Riley Gaines Act, absentee ballots received after Election Day, UOCAVA ballots, and the ongoing debate over birthright citizenship. In this episode: Rick Jackson, Burt Jones, Keisha Lance Bottoms, and Georgia GOP unity Shelley Winter endorses Rick Jackson Greg Dolezal and the special-session election bill Jon Ossoff's attack on Mike Collins and Brandon Phillips Brian Kemp's suspensions of Georgia sheriffs NRSC v. FEC and what it could mean for Georgia campaign finance law The Riley Gaines Act and women's sports Absentee ballot deadlines, UOCAVA ballots, and election confidence Birthright citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment, and constitutional process America's 250th birthday and the Fourth of July Peach Pundit Podcast is Georgia's conversation about politics, elections, campaigns, public policy, and the people shaping the Peach State.

Birthright Citizenship Is Not a Presidential Permission Slip | TMP #1084

Let's Talk: The Tony Michaels Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 2, 2026 4:59

Send us Fan MailBirthright citizenship is not a presidential permission slip.In today's Opening Argument, Tony Michaels tells the story of a barbershop just outside Atlanta, Georgia, where three American stories collide: one family from Ireland, one family brought here in chains, and one American born here to parents from Haiti.The question is simple, but dangerous:Who gets to decide who belongs?Donald Trump's attempt to challenge birthright citizenship was not just an immigration fight. It was a test of whether a president can narrow the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment by executive order.The Constitution already gives the answer:“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”The debate is legitimate.The shortcut is not.No president gets to stand over the Fourteenth Amendment with an eraser. Citizenship is not something granted by presidential approval. It is a constitutional promise.Get your free Constitution at https://thecoffmanchronicle.kit.com/pocket-constitutionPresented by Squawk Boss Coffee. Get the free Freshness Guide at https://wakeupyourcoffee.com/Find more at https://www.thecoffmanchronicle.com/Support the show

united states american donald trump ireland presidential haiti constitution citizenship birthright citizenship fourteenth amendment permission slip

Inside the Supreme Court's Key 2026 Decisions

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 2, 2026 36:07

Jeff Fisher discusses a term marked by major rulings across executive power, voting, and civil rights, and what they signal about the Court's trajectory. --- The Supreme Court has wrapped up a consequential term, issuing decisions that could shape executive power, constitutional rights, and the balance between the branches of government for years to come. Rulings on birthright citizenship, independent federal agencies, voting rights, transgender athletes, and Fourth Amendment digital privacy all landed within weeks of one another, offering a rare, wide-angle view of where the Court is headed. In this episode, Professor Jeff Fisher joins Pam Karlan to unpack the term's biggest rulings. Fisher and Karlan co-direct the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, and are among the nation's leading experts on Supreme Court litigation and constitutional law, regularly briefing and arguing cases before the Court, giving them a close vantage point on its work. The discussion traces how the Court is navigating open clashes with President Trump even as it advances long-standing goals of the conservative legal movement, and examines the Court's growing use of history and tradition as a tool of constitutional interpretation. Fisher and Karlan also discuss disagreements among the justices and consider how recent decisions may be emboldening the executive branch. Links: Jeff Fisher >>> Stanford Profile Opinions of the Court 2025 >>> US Supreme Court Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction 00:00:57 How to understand this Supreme Court term 00:03:12 A divided Court with rising tensions 00:04:35 Digital privacy and the Fourth Amendment 00:07:35 The Court and the democratic process 00:09:07 Race-conscious law and disparate impact 00:11:09 Election rules, fraud claims, and voting rights 00:14:56 Birthright citizenship and the limits of originalism 00:16:36 History, tradition, and judicial reasoning 00:18:39 Presidential power and independent agencies 00:23:08 The future of the unitary executive theory 00:25:31 Trump, the shadow docket, and executive authority 00:26:08 Immigration, presidential rhetoric, and Court deference 00:28:17 Presidential facts, tweets, and legal reality 00:30:48 Transgender rights and the law of school sports 00:32:23 Why context matters in Supreme Court decisions 00:35:47 Conclusion Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Birthright Citizenship

Celebrate Kids Podcast with Dr. Kathy

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 1, 2026 11:37

June 30, 2026Trump signed an executive order, on his first day in office, declaring that there was no birthright citizenship, The ACLU and others sued the administration, The Fourteenth Amendment established birthright citizenship, After the Civil War former Confederates denied Black Southerners basic rights, The Republican Congress passed a civil rights bill in 1866 but President Andrew Johnson vetoed it, When Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, it acknowledged that the Constitution had already established citizenship for all persons born or naturalized in the US, The 14th Amendment was challenged in the late 19th century, but the Supreme Court upheld it in 1898, After that, It seemed the law was settled, After Trump issued his executive order, judges all sided against him, and today the current court upheld birthright citizenship, But many have said that the Supreme Court should never have even taken the case, And four of the nine current Supreme Court justices appear to be willing to rewrite the Constitution, MAGA is pressing the administration to step up immigration enforcement in response. Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

american congress supreme court civil war letters constitution maga amendment blue sky confederate aclu birthright citizenship andrew johnson fourteenth amendment after trump republican congress black southerners

Birthright Citizenship Fight Enters a New Chapter

3 Martini Lunch

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 1, 2026 20:26 Transcription Available

Radio host Craig Collins, who hosts The Craig Collins Show, fills in for Greg on the Wednesday 3 Martini Lunch. Join Jim and Craig as they discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship, an NPR reporter's erroneous reporting on Justice Samuel Alito's retirement, and a New Jersey Congressman's return to office after four months of leave, where he received treatment for depression.First, Jim and Craig address the Supreme Court's upholding of birthright citizenship and express their concerns with birth tourism. Given the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Jim argues that any changes to birthright citizenship must come from lawmakers.Next, they blast the major reporting failure by NPR reporter Nina Totenberg, who claimed Justice Alito was retiring, without sufficient confirmation. Totenberg claims to have misheard Chief Justice John Roberts mention retirements and jumped to the conclusion that he was referring to Justice Alito. NPR quickly retracted the reporting.Finally, Jim and Craig react to Republican Thomas Kean Jr.'s return to Congress after taking a four-month sabbatical to deal with a depression diagnosis. Prior to speaking publicly about his departure, the Congressman had stated an undisclosed medical issue for the reason of his absence. Jim and Craig question whether Congress members with mental health diagnoses are apt to work in a career with immense scrutiny.Please visit our great sponsors:HomeServeFor 50% less your first year, go to https://HomeServe.com/Martini to find the plan that's right for you. Savings compared to renewal price. Void in Florida.IncogniTake control of your digital footprint today. Use code 3ML at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/3ML.New episodes every weekday.

Guiding Kids Through the Transgender Sports Debate: Considering the Supreme Court's West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox Decision

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 1, 2026 28:42

The Supreme Court has issued one of its most significant rulings yet on transgender participation in school sports, and parents are left wondering how to explain it to their children. In this episode of Facing the Dark, Wayne and Dr. Kathy unpack the decision and move beyond the headlines to explore what it means for identity, compassion, and truth. The Court ruled unanimously that state laws restricting participation in girls' sports based on biological sex do not violate Title IX, and by a 6–3 majority held that these laws also do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The case arose after transgender student-athletes—including Becky Pepper-Jackson in West Virginia and Lindsay Hecox in Idaho—challenged state laws requiring athletes to compete according to their biological sex. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that states may preserve women's sports for biological females and determine eligibility based on biological sex, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in dissent, argued that excluding transgender women from women's sports still constitutes discrimination "on the basis of sex." Rather than focusing only on the legal questions, Wayne and Dr. Kathy explore the deeper issue every family faces: How do we help our children develop a secure identity in Christ so they can engage difficult cultural conversations with both conviction and compassion? They discuss why security forms identity, why identity shapes belonging, and how parents can teach their children to hold firmly to biblical truth while treating every person with dignity, kindness, and genuine love.

kids writing debate facing court decision supreme court dark idaho west virginia transgender identity in christ guiding brett kavanaugh title ix fourteenth amendment justice ketanji brown jackson equal protection clause

The Supreme Court Is a Mess

Prosecuting Donald Trump

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 20:48

As Andrew puts it, Chief Justice John Roberts is “cherry-picking.” He's flying solo in this short edition of Main Justice (more to come with Mary in the next episode). Andrew gives a quick briefing on several of the Supreme Court's most consequential end-of-term rulings, starting with the decision not to hear an appeal in the E. Jean Carroll case. Andrew also touches on the Court's decision to uphold a Mississippi law to allow mail-in ballots that are sent by Election Day to be counted but saves his deepest analysis for two similar cases with opposing decisions: the firings of Lisa Cook and Rebecca Slaughter. While the Court ruled that the Trump administration must have cause to dismiss Cook from the Federal Reserve, it allowed the government to fire Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission, a decision which Andrew calls deeply flawed showing the conservative majority's support for a “unitary executive.” And finally, Andrew breaks down the Court's narrow decision to uphold birthright citizenship, and why the tight 5-4 split is the story. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

ai president donald trump law war ms fire elections alabama barack obama racism judge iran executives middle east legal court decision decisions supreme court lawyers mississippi mess cook immigration judgement attorney framework election day rhode island denial appeal msnbc declaration verdict federal reserve allies scotus firing attorney generals doj executive orders ftc sexual abuse international relations slaughter data centers judicial 2020 election jd vance protesters legislative rnc avoidance litigation dhs nomination ballots district attorney prosecution mar a lago simplecast iran war religious freedom federal trade commission defamation refusal gerrymandering grand jury john roberts tro federal judges iran deal supreme court decisions memorandum birthright citizenship republican national committee fourth amendment department of justice executive branch 14th amendment appeals court us border fourteenth amendment lisa cook presidential immunity mail in ballots nonpartisan 4th amendment judicial branch executive actions judicial review legislative branch andrew weissmann temporary restraining order mary mccord prosecuting donald trump main justice alabama election

Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Ruling: Why Congress Can Override It | 6/30/26

Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 55:29

This will be the most important show you listened to analyzing the Supreme Court's anchor baby opinion. What is more important than the opinion itself is what Trump, Congress, the red states, and the political Right will do in response. Today, you will learn why it is impossible for the Supreme Court to be correct about the Fourteenth Amendment, why it's impossible the court has the authority to rule on this with finality, and why Trump and Congress have an obligation to only use their powers in concert with the Constitution and the social compact. Today's ruling is only a travesty if we allow it to be. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

donald trump congress supreme court constitution ruling birthright citizenship override fourteenth amendment

Birthright Citizenship Survives! How America's 250th Birthday Celebration is Going (with Kevin Ryan)

Politics Politics Politics

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 101:01

The Supreme Court wrapped up its term with three major decisions, and one surprise that turned out not to be a surprise after all. NPR briefly published a report that suggested Justice Samuel Alito was retiring, which would have handed Donald Trump another Supreme Court appointment, but that story was pulled, leaving us to wonder when that announcement might finally land.The actual rulings were significant enough on their own, though. The Court rejected Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders, effectively settling a legal argument that immigration hawks have wanted decided for decades. They've argued for years that the phrase “under the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment leaves room to limit birthright citizenship. Trump finally brought that argument to the Supreme Court, and the Court disagreed. At least for now, this feels like settled law, and I'm curious to see where immigration activists go from here.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The Court also upheld Idaho and West Virginia laws banning transgender athletes from women's and girls' sports. The ruling says Title IX permits sex-separated teams based on biological sex, and while the liberal justices wanted a narrower constitutional review, they agreed on the Title IX question. It feels like this issue has reached a legal endpoint. It's remarkable that Title IX has become the vehicle for defending these policies, but I don't see much room left for this fight in the courts.The final decision struck down federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, ruling that the caps violate the First Amendment. Republicans are understandably celebrating because the National Republican Senatorial Committee brought the case, while Democrats are warning about billionaire influence and corruption. I tend to think the real victim here is the political middleman. Most of this money was getting where it wanted to go anyway. People donate to party committees because they want those organizations directing resources into competitive races. If you're worried about billionaire influence, I think the darker corners of campaign finance remain a much bigger issue than the official party committees.Meanwhile, the national media has finally caught up to something I've been talking about for weeks: gas prices keep falling even though every expert expected the opposite after the war with Iran began. I first noticed it at my local gas station in Austin, and it didn't line up with the conventional wisdom that prices shoot up like a rocket and come down like a feather. Now that same question is being asked everywhere. National gas prices have fallen for five straight weeks, crude oil has drifted back into what I'd consider a normal range, and we're steadily moving away from the price spike that followed the conflict. Trump is even publicly pressuring retailers to get prices down to $2.50 a gallon, although it's pretty obvious he'd be thrilled just to get them back near $3.The diplomacy behind all of this is getting more interesting. Iran launched drones at supertankers over the weekend, the United States responded with strikes on missile sites near the Strait of Hormuz, and shipping resumed. At the same time, the Trump administration appears to be running a good cop, bad cop strategy. JD Vance has focused on keeping negotiations alive, while Marco Rubio's trip through the Gulf helped produce an Israel-Lebanon agreement tied to a broader deal with Iran and expanded shipping options through Oman. If crude oil keeps falling despite all of that, then the question I can't shake is the same one I've been asking for weeks: what exactly is Iran's leverage? If they're negotiating denuclearization and they can't keep energy prices elevated, then I need somebody who understands the Iranian system better than I do to explain where the leverage actually is.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:21 - Tom Kean00:06:41 - Supreme Court Decisions00:12:17 - Iran and Gas Prices00:24:28 - Interview with Kevin Ryan00:46:57 - Colorado Primaries00:54:29 - House of Representatives00:57:46 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, con't01:36:37 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Birthright Citizenship: The History Behind the Debate | Martha S. Jones (Re-Release)

The Electorette Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 51:35

A timely re-release exploring the history behind one of the Supreme Court's most consequential constitutional questions. With the Supreme Court poised to issue a landmark ruling on birthright citizenship, I'm re-releasing one of the most important conversations we've had on the subject. In this episode, historian Martha S. Jones discusses her groundbreaking book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America, which traces the origins of birthright citizenship long before the Fourteenth Amendment—and long before today's immigration debates. We explore how free and formerly enslaved Black Americans fought to define who belonged in the United States, challenged efforts to deny them citizenship, and helped lay the foundation for one of the Constitution's most consequential guarantees. We also discuss the Dred Scott decision, the colonization movement, the legal strategies Black Americans used to claim their rights, and why understanding this history is essential to understanding the debate today. Although this conversation was originally recorded in 2019, its historical context is arguably even more relevant today. If you found this conversation helpful, like this episode and follow @electorette for more conversations on democracy, constitutional rights, and the people shaping America's future. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

united states america race debate supreme court rights constitution black americans re release birthright citizenship history behind fourteenth amendment dred scott antebellum america martha s jones birthright citizens a history

6-30-26 - 9am - SCOTUS Birthright Citizenship Ruling

The Situation with Michael Brown

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 33:14 Transcription Available

In a surprising turn of events, the Supreme Court has handed down a decision that's got everyone talking. Today's ruling on birthright citizenship has left many scratching their heads, and our host is here to break it down. But before diving into the details, he takes a moment to celebrate Pride Month in a unique way – by wearing a rainbow shirt and making a statement about inclusivity.This episode is all about the Supreme Court's decision on birthright citizenship, and our host is not afraid to share his thoughts on the matter. He argues that the Court's reasoning is flawed and that the decision is a result of a misunderstanding of the Constitution. He also delves into the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it relates to the current case. But what's really interesting is the way the Court's decision has split the conservative justices, with some agreeing with the majority and others dissenting.One of the key points of contention is the idea that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Fourteenth Amendment is not just about geography, but about allegiance. Our host makes a compelling argument that the Court's decision is not just about the Constitution, but about the way we think about citizenship and what it means to be an American. He also highlights the importance of the dissenting opinions, which offer a different perspective on the issue.If you're interested in learning more about this complex and timely topic, tune in to this episode to hear our host's take on the Supreme Court's decision and the implications it has for our understanding of citizenship and the Constitution.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

american court supreme court constitution pride month scotus ruling birthright citizenship fourteenth amendment

Hour 1: Should a baby born in America automatically be an American?

The Scoot Show with Scoot

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 38:11

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, ruling 6–3 that the policy is unconstitutional. Handed down on June 30, 2026, the landmark decision in Trump v. Barbara (alternatively cited as Trump v. CASA) firmly establishes that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees automatic citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status.

american donald trump babies news supreme court casa handed automatically fourteenth amendment

Full Show 6/30/2026: New Supreme Court ruling proves Americans don't care about civics

The Scoot Show with Scoot

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 107:28

On today's show, The U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, ruling 6–3 that the policy is unconstitutional. Handed down on June 30, 2026, the landmark decision in Trump v. Barbara (alternatively cited as Trump v. CASA) firmly establishes that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees automatic citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Is the WNBA uncomfortable with Caitlin Clark because she gets so much attention, brings in new fans, and doesn't fit the image some people want for the league? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are allowed to count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 ruling that allows states to count late-arriving mail-in ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Debbie Bresler of the Crescent City Countdown Club joins the show to talk about Go 4TH on the River, New Orleans' world-class 4th of July celebration marking America's 250th birthday.

america donald trump americans news care new orleans supreme court casa wnba election day proves caitlin clark handed civics supreme court ruling republican national committee fourteenth amendment supreme court justice amy coney barrett

BORN IN THE USA: Supreme Court Reaffirms Birthright Citizenship

Broeske and Musson

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 30, 2026 30:49

The Supreme Court struck down an executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship, ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States. In a 6–3 decision, the Court reaffirmed longstanding precedent that birthplace—not parent immigration status—determines citizenship. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Broeske & Musson' on all platforms: --- The ‘Broeske & Musson Podcast’ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever else you listen to podcasts. --- ‘Broeske & Musson' Weekdays 9-11 AM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Facebook | Podcast| X | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | InstagramSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

united states spotify court supreme court newstalk birthright citizenship fourteenth amendment born in the usa

A Vast Grab for Power