D @tooquiet

SCOTUS: “The 14th Amendment means even if you’re born to illegals if they give birth to you on American soil you’re an American!” Jacob Howard Author of the 14th: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens.”

Again, if you are angry today that anger should be directed to Trump and the GOP to act. The court opinion is only a travesty if the political branches actively give it effect and make it a travesty. This is not a case of a criminal conviction that relies on a court's power. This is the court opining that every invader ought to have citizenship. Fine. But State/DHS give out citizenship documents, and Congress funds them. Simply prohibit funding for A) all citizenship documents for those not born to an LPR and B) any court case to hear complaints about it. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in Patchak v. Zinke, “When Congress strips federal courts of jurisdiction, it exercises a valid legislative power no less than when it lays taxes, coins money, declares war, or invokes any other power that the Constitution grants it.”

Daniel Horowitz @RMConservative

11 hours ago

Today's show: How the court ruling cannot be true, how the courts cannot possibly have the power over this (even if they were correct) and what Trump and the GOP must do to defund the policy immediately. It's all in today's show. The response to the ruling will be a lot more

4 20 46 6K 4

It’s a perversion of self-government. Judicially mandating that foreigners are entitled to birth US citizens against the wishes of the people as reflected in law means we cease to be our own rulers.

Daniel Horowitz @RMConservative

13 hours ago

That an invader cannot unilaterally assert jurisdiction against a sovereign is the most ancient principle of nation states articulated in the Declaration we celebrate this week. No court opinion can change that, especially when courts don't hand out citizenship documents.

47 265 1K 199K 56

@lsferguson That, and Congress authorizing offering 100% fed tax exemption for those who attest on IRS 1040 that they will emigrate & renounce within 6mo.

If SCOTUS rules incorrectly on this, Congress should immediately cite the cases in which the courts have recognized that illegals are not under the political jurisdiction of the United States and pass a law stating that illegals are not under the political jurisdiction of the United States and bar the 14th amendment from applying to babies born to non-citizens, or at the very least lawful permanent residents. Congress must defend their power to statutorily define the scope of citizenship outside of political jurisdiction.

Sean Davis @seanmdav

a day ago

Less than 24 hours until John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett lawsplain that akshully communist Chinese spy anchor babies are just as American as George Washington. Maybe even more American.

332 4K 24K 829K 592

Trump should just bar USPS mail in vote delivery at the 11th hour and say "sue me"

Also, the immediate reaction from a GOP House, aside from jurisdiction stripping, should be denying funds for the executive branch to issue citizenship documents to children of illegals and birth tourists in the FY 2027 aprops or budget reconciliation. Courts do not control the purse strings.

Daniel Horowitz @RMConservative

2 days ago

Reminder that A) the impending court decision only binds the four plaintiffs B) a court ruling is not self-executing on another branch of government when attempting to place a positive on a negative action C) even if a court had that authority, it could never violate the social

5 25 82 20K 10

Reminder that A) the impending court decision only binds the four plaintiffs B) a court ruling is not self-executing on another branch of government when attempting to place a positive on a negative action C) even if a court had that authority, it could never violate the social compact and steal citizenship against the consent of the nation D) Congress can still prospectively strip the judiciary of jurisdiction to hear similar cases E) with regard to the 14th Amendment, in particular, Section 5 gives congress, not the courts, the final say over enforcing its provision.

SCOTUS validates election practices in places like California that count votes received after the election. A loss for election integrity. Florida will keep doing it right.

SCOTUS Wire @scotus_wire

2 days ago

🚨 In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law does not require mail-in ballots to be received by Election Day, holding that states may count ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterward if state law allows it.

982 1K 6K 2.5M 639

Less than 24 hours until John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett lawsplain that akshully communist Chinese spy anchor babies are just as American as George Washington. Maybe even more American.

Ref SAVE America + NDAA: The Rules Committee can make the Amendment in Order. I have already submitted both the amendment to attach SAVE America Act to rules but tomorrow I will also submit a Voter ID/Proof of Citizenship Amendment to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee can include this in the special rule (structured rule) and waive germaneness/other points of order. This allows debate/vote on the floor under controlled time. NDAA has seen many OTHER policy riders via this process. The precedent exists. The NDAA rules frequently make dozens/hundreds of amendments in order after Armed Services markup; non-germane policy additions occur when leadership prioritizes them. This is a PRIORITY.

Tomorrow Barrett will publish her argument that a Chinese Communist party member who flies to Guam so he and his wife can deliver their baby, who then take their child to be raised in China, will be eligible to be President of the United states 35 years later

We make it far too easy for senators in the minority to use the filibuster to kill bills supported by the majority. The whole idea behind the filibuster has, from the beginning, been to protect and prolong debate—not to cut off debate, forcing the Senate to abandon any bill that doesn’t immediately receive the support of at least 60 senators. Filibustering is supposed to require far more than opposing cloture. Especially for bills of exceptional national importance—like the SAVE America Act—senators should be required to hold the floor and speak. The minute filibustering senators stop doing that, the legislation can and should be passed at a simple-majority threshold. This is not a radical idea. This describes what the filibuster is, how it has historically operated, and how it should work today. Share this message if you agree that the Senate—and the country as a whole—would be well served by a return to this approach.

this would be a good thing

NewsWire @NewsWire_US

3 days ago

Some Republicans Push to Repeal 17th Amendment — Allowing State Legislatures to Pick Senators Instead of the People

434 481 4K 1.5M 688

DHS to start removing Haitians immediately after TPS ruling justthenews.com/node/184235?ut…

Nowhere is the Constitution will you find the Senate's filibuster, the Byrd Rule, the Senate Parliamentarian and the Blue Slip rule. All are being expertly used to sabotage the Trump Administration. @SenateGOP @LeaderJohnThune @realDonaldTrump @JDVance

@_ChaoticGood42 @LeadingReport ...assuming they earned anything...

@_ChaoticGood42 @LeadingReport Offer 100% tax exemption on last year's taxes if they renounce.

@X1912PatriotX @LeadingReport 100% discount on taxes owed when one pledges on IRS 1040 to renounce US Citizenship overseas in the following 6mo.