Below is my column in the Hill on the argument this week in Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case. There are good-faith arguments on both sides and lawyers are divided on the question. For that reason, the most notable brief may have been the amicus brief of the American Bar Association, which filed a strident defense of birthright citizenship.
Here is the column:
The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in the historic birthright citizenship case. It is a hearing that has been over 150 years in the making, since the ratification of the 14th Amendment. It is not just a long-debated question that has divided the nation, but it has divided many lawyers as well.
For that reason, there was one brief that stood out before the court: the amicus brief of the American Bar Association.
The ABA filed its “friend of the court” brief to argue that the matter is clear: Anyone who gives birth on our soil, even if here illegally or only briefly, may claim U.S. citizenship for their child.
Most nations on Earth, including many of our European allies, reject birthright citizenship, and many of us in this nation believe that it is a foolish policy. Yet, even as someone who opposes birthright citizenship, I have long believed and argued that there are good-faith arguments on both sides of this debate.
The sponsors of this language clearly disagreed on the issue at the time of its enactment. Some stated at the time that the language did not allow for birthright citizenship.
The debate comes down to six poorly chosen words: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those words were not in the original draft, but were inserted by an amendment. Thus, they were not superfluous or casual verbiage, but an intentional condition. They were placed in the middle of an otherwise clear statement that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens of the United States.”
For more than a century, many have argued that the words reflect an intent to limit the amendment to citizens and legal residents who are subject fully to the jurisdiction of the United States.
That brings us back to the bar association. Regardless of how one comes out in the fascinating historical and constitutional debate, this is a case one would expect the ABA to sit out. It clearly does not speak for all lawyers on the issue, yet, it filed a strident brief and laid out a parade of horribles about what would happen if the Supreme Court were to reject birthright citizenship.
I found the brief to be one of the least compelling submissions to the court. But, once again, the media will portray the brief as speaking for American lawyers, even though the ABA represents less than two out of every ten attorneys.
I previously wrote a column on these pages on “the rise and fall of the American Bar Association,” exploring how the ABA has alienated many lawyers with its partisan advocacy. When it was founded on August 21, 1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, the 75 lawyers present from 20 states (and the District of Columbia) wanted an organization to create a national system of standards for “the advancement of the science of jurisprudence, the promotion of the administration of justice.” It was created to focus on professional accreditation, education, and training.
That changed in 1990, when advocates overrode earlier votes to remain neutral on the constitutional interpretations supporting the right to abortion. The adoption of a pro-abortion position shocked many and fundamentally changed the culture at the ABA. (It is worth noting that the very arguments embraced by the bar association were later rejected by the Supreme Court in the Dobbs decision.)
Since that time, the ABA has become fully captive to partisans who use the organization to support liberal and often Democratic Party positions. The result has been a steady decline in membership.
Today, there are roughly 1.3 million lawyers in the U.S. Even if the ABA represented just half of that number, it would have 650,000 members. As recently as 2015, it still had 400,000. But more recently, membership has fallen to 227,000, or just 17 percent of the bar.
Despite complaints that the ABA has become a partisan organization, its leadership has doubled down with positions and programming that are echo chambers for the left. During Trump’s terms, the ABA has uniformly opposed him and his policies.
The ABA brief in favor of birthright citizenship is signed by ABA President Michele Behnke. It simply declares the language and history clear and resolved. It then predicts a virtual meltdown of order and due process in this country if birthright citizenship is not upheld.
The decline of the ABA to the point where it does not speak for most lawyers has followed a familiar model. The media also abandoned neutrality in covering such stories, with many journalism schools now teaching students that they are advocates for social justice. Likewise, academia largely purged its departments of Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians, as it increasingly prioritized advocacy over education.
All three of these groups have one thing in common beyond their liberal ideological bias and advocacy: They are all increasingly unpopular. Higher education and the media have plummeted in public trust to record lows. Like the ABA, which can no longer claim to speak even for most lawyers, there is little indication that the loss of trust is causing the leadership to do any soul-searching.
As memberships and revenues decline, the use of these institutions for advocacy remains personally beneficial. Behnke is leading an organization that is a shell of its former self, but she (like academics and journalists) is lionized for taking these positions.
Ironically, Behnke has a role in two of these areas, as a board member for the University of Wisconsin Law School and the University of Wisconsin Foundation and Alumni Association Board.
Faced with an ABA doubling down on these controversial positions, various states are moving to do away with its historical role in bar memberships.
The brief reaffirmed for many lawyers that the ABA is no longer a neutral and fair representative for all lawyers. It will continue to represent a dwindling faction of lawyers who look at the association as more of a stridently ideological than a strictly professional organization. That is why, whatever the outcome in Trump v. Barbara, the American Bar Association is likely to be the loser.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
“The sponsors of this language clearly disagreed on the issue at the time of its enactment. Some stated at the time that the language did not allow for birthright citizenship.”
“The debate comes down to six poorly chosen words: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those words were not in the original draft, but were inserted by an amendment.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Blinded by their objective in their “pursuit of happiness,” this is what so often happens; individuals, including judges and justices, hold an opinion at variance with the law and use any so-called “evidence” to ignore and circumvent the law.
Poppycock! The nation must strictly adhere to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution only.
The Supreme Court will not be considering history, personal proclivity, or any other real or imagined variant.
It will, legally, necessarily, and properly, be considering the law only.
___________________________________________________________________________
14th Amendment
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.
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
The ABA has been a “loser,” both intellectually and by membership, for many decades. The sooner it folds and withers away the better. As for its “amicus curiae” (“friend of the court”) [sic] brief, it is a sad excuse for even a vigorous advocacy brief on behalf of illegal alien birth tourists. Even embarrassing.
If one wants a better and far more accurate perspective on the core issues, read the amicus brief of University of Minnesota Law School Professor Ilan Wurman (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392842/20260127175852031_Trump%20v%20Barbara%20-%20Wurman%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20FINAL.pdf).
Lawyer: “Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “Did you check for blood pressure?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “Did you check for breathing?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “How can you be so sure, Doctor?”
Witness: “Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.”
Lawyer: “But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?”
Witness: “Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.”
The ABA, like the AMA for doctors, has seemed for years to have been taken over by radicals who abandoned professionalism.
And speaking of: the radical Delaware judge [McCormick] who slew Delaware’s golden goose by her bizarre ruling against Musk has announced she will no longer preside over cases involving Musk.
https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/2038630214498910507
A well earned victory for Musk and his lawyers. I imagine someone in Delaware also may have dropped a strong hint in McCormick’s ear that it would be nice if she stopped destroying the state’s economic foundations.
After McCormick’s bizarre ruling likely based on “feelings” or Critical Legal Theory or whatever, Musk pulled out of Delaware. Other major companies soon followed. What made Delaware attractive in part was a sober, steady and predictable legal system. McCormick torpedoed that reputation. Where we used to see “XXX, A Delaware Corporation,” we will see more of “XXX, A Texas [or Nevada] Corporation.”
It would have been prudent if after McCormick’s original Musk travesty someone found a way to immediately reverse her decision and relegate McCormick to traffic court and assure billion [trillion?] Dollar companies the state still took law seriously.
Maybe someone is trying to repair the damage now; but McCormick’s torpedo hit below the waterline and they waited too long; the USS Delaware has taken on too much water and is in danger of sinking. Big companies are heading for the lifeboats.
This is a good example of why judges and their staff should not be publicly supporting social media posts about parties that appear before the court. She claims she did not knowingly “like” the LinkedIn post about Musk’s legal loss in another jurisdiction, but how else did her “like” reaction get there? Also, a member of her staff “liked” a separate LinkedIn post critical of Musk. This clearly undermines impartiality or the perception of impartiality. That is textbook reason for a judge to recuse. Yet, she denied the motion for recusal but (bizarrely) granted the motion for reassignment. The denial of the recusal motion on the grounds she did not intentionally “like” the social media post is ridiculous. Whether or not she intentionally liked it, recusal is appropriate when the perception of impartiality is undermined.
Oldman– “recusal is appropriate when the perception of impartiality is undermined.”
Well said. The perception of impartiality is vital if the courts are to regain our respect. Roberts, by letting people like Boasberg and the Autopen judges run wild is leaving the reputation of the judiciary badly stained.
Prof. Turkey comments on the brief filed by the ABA: it apparently states that birth-right citizenship is clearly and simply correct as a matter of law. This reminds me of an observation by the great sociologist Robert Nisbet that one of the characteristics of commentary by left-wing scholars is that they assert that their opinions are “simply and clearly” correct. Thus there is no need for persuasion or argument .
It’s truly a shame that Turley has adopted the MAGA tactic of attacking any person or organization that disagrees with the MAGA agenda. Turley argues: that other countries do not grant birthright citizenship–so what? Other countries don’t have our Constitution. Turley also argues that “many” believe birthright citizenship to be “foolish”–again, so what? There are “many” (on the ultra-right, of course) who believe equal protection under the law and the right of due process are foolish, too. They don’t think black or brown people, and, for some of them, women, should even be allowed to vote despite the fact that they are citizens. Turley accuses the ABA of being the “echo chamber of the left” because it has opposed restricting the right to abortion, based on the Constitutional rights of privacy and liberty. Standing up for the Constitution is not partisan–it’s what an organization representing the bar SHOULD do. The Constitution is our guiding light. The fact that MAGAs and right-wingers reject the right to birthright citizenship and the Constitutional rights of privacy and liberty that should prevent the government from dictating what a woman is allowed to do with her own body does not make these freedoms a “left” issue.
Turley argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is supposedly somehow poorly-worded. So, then, according to Turley, are what he calls “illegals” NOT “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? If that’s the case, then they can’t be arrested or incarcerated in ICE concentration camps. It’s clear that this language was intended to apply to diplomats and their families who are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The real upshot of this entire debate is racism, pure and simple–it’s all part of Project 2025 that Trump lied about being his agenda, but which is being fully implemented. Racism is also unconstitutional and un-American.
It’s truly a shame that Turley has adopted the MAGA tactic of attacking any person or organization that disagrees with the… and riots in MN paid for by ideologues, and No Kings is what exactly?
You started out at bad and got then lost it – went full TDS.
Racism? Let’s make it personal to make a point,. Then why don’t you take a half-dozen illegals into your home and financially support them, pay healthcare, educate and train them. Take full responsibility for them without forcing others to pay with their ever disappearing resources.
quinn: Trump’s name was only mentioned in conjunction with his lie about Project 2025 being his real agenda–he pretended he didn’t know anything about it, then hired the architects of it and has been carrying out that agenda. Did you forget that? There weren’t any “riots” in Minnesota–but 2 American citizens were murdered in cold blood by Trump’s private army of masked thugs, who are still not under arrest. Despite multiple demands, the Minnesota AG still has not been given the evidence of the crimes they committed, which Trump’s DOJ confiscated. The so-called “illegals” come here to work and have a better life. American taxpayers are not supporting them or training them.
Can it possibly be the case that you really don’t understand what millions of us marched about on “No Kings Day”? Trump thinks he is a king–that he can rename the Gulf of Mexico, take over Canada, the Panama Canal and Greenland, singlehandedly wage war against Venezuela and Iran and kill thousands of people, including a school for girls (and then lie about it, blaming the Iranians) blow up boats in the Pacific and go back for a second round to kill the survivors (which is a war crime), without seeking any permission, tear down part of the White House to build a vanity project, put his name above JFK on the Kennedy Center, tear up Jackie Kennedy’s Rose Garden to build a cheesy patio so womens high heels won’t get stuck in the dirt (because he requires the females in his universe to wear those cheap-looking, ultra high heels), put up cheap, gaudy gold embellishments everywhere, ignore the law, turn the DOJ into his personal law firm that is covering up his crimes that are documented in the Epstein files and protect his cronies who raped little girls, pretend to care about going after drug cartels, and then pardoning a drug kingpin who imported tons of cocaine into the US, pardoned the J6 insurrectionists who did millions of dollars of damage to the Capitol and beat up Capitol Police officers, pardoned other criminals who don’t deserve it, including those who committed fraud and who were ordered to make restitution to their victims (which they don’t have to now), accept a luxury flying palace from Qatar, accept $2 B to purchase his worthless cryptocurrency, and Kushner also received $2 B from Saudi Arabia to bail out a real estate project of his—-the very long list goes on and on.
In case the MAGA media you watch hasn’t been reporting it, Trump’s approval rating is the lowest in history. Gas is way over $4 a gallon and will keep going up, inflation is the highest it has been in years, grocery prices are going up, no new jobs were created on his watch, and he constantly lies about “winning the war” in Iran, even though he’s sending in more troops to get killed. The majority of us are sick to death of him and his lies. If there’s any “derangement” involving Trump, it’s ignoring what a thoroughly horrible job he is doing pretending to be worthy of the title of “President of the United States”. He LIED about bringing down the cost of groceries and not starting any new wars just to get into office, and now, he’s doing exactly whatever he pleases. He has played golf 110 times since taking office, which has cost us taxpayers over a hundred million dollars.
Professor Turley, Do you imagine yourself unbiased? I don’t see that.
Why is American politics full of people who don’t do what they prescribe for others? And why does bitter criticism of the other side’s actions so often lead into using those actions to justify doing the exact thing we criticized?
If The Nine approve the theory that just being here even illegally and giving birth allows citizenship, then stick a fork in us we are done!
Bit melodramatic aren’t we? The same thing applied to many of our own family members when they immigrated here. Legally and illegally.
A point that never occurred to you, so you swipe him.
Preposterously claiming that illegal aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is evasion and circumvention of the law, not application of it.
Folks, want clear and consider information on the subject? Read SCOTUSblog.com:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/trump-v-barbara-an-animated-explainer/.
“If you’re half right, you’re half wrong, if you’re half wrong, you’re all wrong.”
– Anonymous
_________________
This propaganda is all wrong.
SCOTUSblog should be embarrassed, defunded, and eliminated.
This pure bull—- vigorously emphasizes “all persons” while completely ignoring the qualifying phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Illegal aliens are immutably NOT “subject to the jurisdiciton thereof” if they are not eligible to vote, for but one example.
If I were going to argue for birthright citizenship for anyone who manages to give birth on our soil, I would have to hold two competing ideas at once. On the one hand, I would be saying that American citizenship is special because it ties you into a constitutional order built around the rule of law and secured rights in a way almost no other country matches.
On the other hand, I would also be saying we are not special enough to care who is invited into that order or why, and that it does not matter whether there is any lawful tie, allegiance, or long‑term commitment behind the passport we hand out. Those two stories do not really live together.
It is already bad enough that too many of our own citizens are no longer forming into a genuinely self‑governing people; treating citizenship as a free prize for anyone who can get across the border long enough to give birth just reinforces that drift, lowers the floor for civic capacity, and in the long run lowers the ceiling on how competent and accountable our government can ever be.
Civic capacity? Constitutional order? Self-governing people? Sounds a car repair manual.
Do you even know what its supposed to mean? Good thing The Founders and The Framers knew how to use clear and understandable language, you use gibberish to sound smart.
Time to get off the internet Olly.
Civic capacity? Elephants have civic capacity. Can self-govern. And create a constitutional order based on sex and size. See, not so hard hard to understand.
Animal Farm right?
The Prentis Cycle
In a 1943 address to the University of Pennsylvania entitled The Cult of Competency (later reprinted as Industrial Management in a Republic) Prentis described what has become known as The Prentis Cycle in which, he asserted, “popular self-government ultimately generates disintegrating forces from within”, as:
From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.[5]
In a 1946 book, Prentis renamed one stage of the cycle and added two stages. The cycle, as revised, is:
From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to freedom; from freedom to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to fear; from fear to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.[6]
Olly, The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens”. Far from being a “free prize” that ignores the rule of law, birthright citizenship is the supreme law of the land.
You really have a twisted sense of history and “construct” of what it means to be a citizen and the concept of self governing.
What we have going on with the 14th amendment issue is there are those who want to define who is deserving of being a citizen. It’s usually the the same people who hold the same mindset that led to the southern states fighting hard to prevent giving slaves citizenship and all the rights everyone else enjoys. It’s the same “great replacement” crowd who fear losing cultural and ethnic dominance. Hispanic populations are outpacing Caucasians and it was the case back during the civil war days when black populations would outnumber whites. Giving them the right to vote and own land would have put them at a serious disadvantage. That is why many like minded folks even today cling to that mindset of losing the stature and cultural dominance they’ve enjoyed since our founding.
Questioning the 14th amendment gives them the ‘precedent’ to define who gets to be a citizen and that is often aimed growing minorities, or minority majorities. But I digress..
Also, In the landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court affirmed that the 14th Amendment applies to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. The Court ruled that such individuals are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. because they owe obedience to its laws while on its soil, regardless of their parents’ status.
Even records from the 1866 congressional debates show that the authors of the 14th Amendment explicitly intended for it to be a broad, inclusive grant of citizenship. Senator Jacob Howard and others noted it was “declaratory” of existing law—that birth on U.S. soil conferred citizenship to the children of “all parentage”
And while the statement claims birthright citizenship “lowers the floor for civic capacity,” many scholars argue the opposite: that it promotes national stability by preventing the creation of a permanent, multigenerational subclass of residents with no legal rights. It serves as a tool for legal assimilation, ensuring that those raised in the U.S. are fully integrated into its constitutional order. That argument is often used by the great replacement nuts as justification for kicking out all immigrants regardless of status.
When you registered to vote were you asked questions such as mothers name, citizenship of mother, mothers place of birth and father? Did you present photocopy of birth cert for yourself? 🤔 do you vote,X?
O. — The citizenship is bestowed on the newborn child, not the parent. The exception is the child of a foreign diplomat.
David, is there anyone in this thread who did not already know the citizenship attaches to the child and not the parent. That is not the issue. The issue is what ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ requires before that newborn qualifies, and your own diplomat example proves that the parents’ legal status can matter to the child’s citizenship.
WHO DID NOT ALREADY KNOW? 😂
O. — That wasn’t what you wrote.
David, come on. Anyone talking about this topic already knows that the citizenship in question attaches to the child and not to the parent. That was never the point at issue. The real question is what ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ requires and whether there are situations where the parents’ status limits the child’s claim to birthright citizenship, as your own diplomat example already shows.
Olly, again. You completely misunderstand what “jurisdiction”means in the 14th. Being born on U.S. soil immediately subjects a child to U.S. laws. Think vaccinations, rules on care, hospital procedures required to maintain the health and well being of the baby. All of that is being ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’.
The only exception clearly spelled out by title, that of a “diplomat” is where citizenship of a newborn is not automatic.
Too many people here are either too ignorant of the facts or too illiterate to understand that the issue is spelled out crystal clear. It’s those how want to get rid of the 14th amendment by having the Supreme Court declare it does not say what it actually says.
I never joined the ABA and I never regretted that decision. The ABA is just another “institution” that has been taken over by the left. ALL colleges and universities, ALL graduate schools even Law and Medical Schools, the media, our health care agencies, the UN, the ICJ, Hollywood and even high schools, middle schools and elementary schools thanks to the unions and the weak minded teachers. I can probably throw in pre-school and day-care after seeing the execrable Miss Rachel spout her anti-Israel propaganda to babies.
Never joined? Its more like, you were rejected.
Ever consider your poor use of language is a reason you sound like a brainless bully?
The ABA never rejects lawyers who want to join. Those lawyers pay dues, and the ABA is not allergic to money.
Bull Hobby
ABA paid membership is only about 150,000. The ABA hands out free memberships to pad its rolls and to get its minions elected whenever there is a contested election. And it doesn’t even verify if those free memberships are going to lawyers.
I left the ABA when they micro managed law school admission standards. They are pompous bullies. They finally got sued and lost.
These Hissing Cockroaches don’t care about Birthright Citizenship or ICE enforced compliance. The upside is, they are low maintenance pets.
“there are roughly 1.3 million lawyers in the U.S.”
As distressing statements go this one runs a close second to, “we found a suspicious shadow on your X-ray.”
As a lawyer I walked away from the ABA years ago. Their many policies and partisan poltitics alienated me. They don’t speak for me and many lawyers in this country.
Anonymous – I chose not to join in the first place due to ABA’s politicization of the law. This is one of many examples of how the Left ruins everything it touches . . . by politicizing those things. A day may come when I can no longer eat popcorn because the Left will have figured out how to politicize popcorn.
“politicization of the law.” Excuse for for asking, but is it not the purpose of law to politicize it. Reflect the wants and desires of the electorate?
I guess “politicizing the law” was a shorthand that didn’t fully capture my meaning. You’re right that legislatures weigh competing social policy goals and reach compromises. That is appropriate politics.
Judges should not be swayed to reach particular interpretations of the legislative work produced based on the judge’s own subjective policy preferences. That distorts the interpretive function and turns judges into politicians wearing black robes.
The ABA should not be politicizing their activities apart from representing the interests of a specific profession that includes lawyers of many different political stripes. They ruin the efficacy of their own organization by becoming political partisans. They should be concerned with how the law affects lawyers as a profession, codes of legal ethics, and the like. That is very different from taking positions on hot-button political issues that have nothing to do with lawyering as a profession.
In the real world the Court cannot just snap its fingers and say ‘no more automatic citizenship for anyone born here’ without throwing the country’s legal status into chaos. Our immigration laws already assume a hard line between people who are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and everyone else, who has to grind through a years‑long naturalization process to join the political community. When I say the framers were focused on freedmen and those ‘lawfully under our jurisdiction,’ I mean people the United States has full, legitimate authority over in both senses: they are here with legal permission and they stand inside our political system as part of the community, not like a tourist, a birth‑tourist, or a border crosser whose only tie is being physically present while remaining outside any lawful path to stay.
OLLY,
That makes sense.
As you have stated numerous time on this site, YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER. So please shut up with the nonsense Olly.
All 55 “framers” said or wrote nothing about illegal alien right to citizenship. Source: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/founding-fathers.
So please stop lying and consider using verifiable sources for you uninformed opinions, and often false facts.
When I talk about the ‘framers’ in this thread I am talking about the people who framed the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, because that is the text the Court is actually interpreting. Waving around a link to the 1787 convention as if Madison and Hamilton were debating illegal entry at San Ysidro is just changing the subject. You do not have to be a lawyer to read the dates on the page and see that the citizenship fight in front of us comes out of 1866–68, not Philadelphia in 1787. If you want to argue history, at least argue the history that belongs to the Amendment we are actually talking about.
In your zeal to ‘take me down’ you never stop to engage your brain, only your emotions, and it shows in the way you keep aiming at the wrong framers and the wrong century.
OLLY,
Great comment and excellent take down of the annony!!
😉 He’ll be back. He’s on a mission and he’s running blind.
More like running around in circles, blind.
Rather ironic Olly that you found a compatriot, the blog idiot, to seek support, someone who weeks ago you ignored and mocked.
Paranoia much Olly? Nothing personal, just keeping the arguments forthright and honest.
You’re an honest guy right, so your comments should reflect truth about history, but somehow that escapes you. At least we source our comments. You? Nothing.
To repeat, for a prodigious word user, you expound a lot of nonsense. Even this comment has more falsities than any previous one.
We find it frightening that someone would claim 16 years on this blog, which it should be pointed out, indicates deeper issues.
Good to see your fan club egging you on, all of one that is.
Lastly, does your momma know you spend 12 hours a day on this site?
Olly, aren’t there some similarities in the interpretation of the 1866 law and the 1964 law? As you recognize, acts of Congress are not the same as the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions. You know that, so I would be careful of unconsciously inferring they are on the same level.
SM, I think you’re reading something into my comment that I didn’t put there. I’m not saying a statute is on the same level as the Constitution or as a Supreme Court decision. I’m saying those later laws are a clue to how people at the time thought the Fourteenth Amendment actually worked on the ground. In other words, I’m using them as evidence of understanding, not as if they are the Constitution.
the Court cannot just snap its fingers and say ‘no more automatic citizenship for anyone born here’ without throwing the country’s legal status into chaos.
I’m not sure what throwing the country’s legal status into chaos means, but whatever it means I doubt it is a relevant concern. The Court’s job is to interpret the Constitution’s text and declare its meaning.
oldman, in principle I agree the Court’s first job is to say what the Constitution means. But in practice this Court has already shown, in the ACA cases, how much real‑world disruption can drive what ‘meaning’ they are willing to live with. If they suddenly announced that nobody born here is automatically a citizen anymore, you would have the same kind of system‑wide shock we saw threatened in health care, only now it would be about basic legal status. So yes, they have to read the text honestly, but they are also going to be thinking very hard about how to do that without turning the entire citizenship and immigration system into the same kind of chaos we watched play out around Obamacare.
Olly – in terms of consequences, what would you think of a decision that ends birthright citizenship prospectively only? They could say that anyone who is already a citizen per the prior interpretation doesn’t lose that citizenship without due process of law – meaning there has to be some new reason for their citizenship to be removed?
oldman, that’s what I was wrestling with. I think if the Court does narrow birthright citizenship at all, it almost has to be purely forward‑looking. Whatever we think the Amendment meant in 1868, you cannot just wake up one day and tell people who have lived their whole lives as Americans that their citizenship was a mistake and is now up for grabs. So yes, a sane version of this would say: everyone who already has citizenship keeps it unless they lose it through some established process, but from here on out the kids of tourists, birth‑tourists, and illegal crossers are not automatically in. That is still a big shift, but at least it does not turn millions of neighbors into instant question marks.
OLLY, OldManFromKS,
I was thinking on that myself, re: Chaos as a result of a birthright citizenship. If it were broad, would someone who was a tourist baby who is now seventeen, get deported? Their parents too? People questioning their status as a citizen?
A narrow birthright citizenship as OLLY suggests could be the answer.
Though I could imagine a sudden surge in birthright tourism just prior to the SC ruling if they put some kind of “as of” date in the ruling.
Olly, if such a thing as birthright citizenship (born within US territory) exists, then why, 100 years ago, was a bill passed to grant citizenship to American Indians? These laws were screwed up long ago.
SM, that 1924 point really does add an important wrinkle I hadn’t put together before, and the more I look at it, the more it fits with a non‑blanket reading of the 14th. And yes, Congress is very good at cranking out legislation; they are just not very good at consistently writing good legislation.
Olly, you continue to grossly misinterpret “jurisdiction”. You imply it means somehow as having permission or allegiance. That’s not the case.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the phrase refers to territorial jurisdiction—being subject to U.S. laws—rather than political allegiance. In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court explicitly stated there is “no plausible distinction” between documented and undocumented immigrants regarding jurisdiction, as both must obey U.S. civil and criminal laws.
You keep using the framers intent but the 14th amendment does not distinguish legal or illegal immigrant status. It all applies to all those born here regardless of status. A slave or a free-man is also a status. Whether a child born of a person whose status as a slave applied or not was irrelevant then as it is irrelevant today what the status of the person being here gives birth to a brand new citizen.
Olly, also Birthright citizenship is not just a constitutional “interpretation” but is codified in 8 U.S.C. § 1401, which mirrors the 14th Amendment’s language and has been the basis for U.S. immigration policy for decades.
The ABA representing lawyers is like the NEA representing educators, and like the government representing We the People.
Most of Turley’s article is a classic ad hominem attack. Instead of refuting the actual legal precedents cited in the ABA’s brief, he spends the majority of his column complaining about their membership numbers and ‘partisan’ history. The validity of a constitutional argument is based on law and history, not the ‘popularity’ or ‘soul-searching’ of the organization presenting it. Turley’s focus on the ABA’s ‘dwindling faction’ is a transparent attempt to distract readers from the fact that the legal consensus heavily favors birthright citizenship.
Good job twisting Turleys words into an incomprehensible gibberish George.
Not having a brain and a law degree are your best characters. Whining suits you well.
It’s bold of you to critique my comprehension of Turley while struggling with basic syntax. I’ll try to use smaller words next time so your frustration doesn’t manifest as such an adorable little tantrum.
Smaller as in corresponding to your brain size George? Please, would help you at least, stop stealing from AI.
Stop throwing hissy fits, you’re a pathological liar and you know it too.
“’ll try to use smaller words next time.” Do you ever have an original thought in your head?
“Turley’s focus on the ABA’s ‘dwindling faction’ is a transparent attempt to distract readers from the fact that the legal consensus heavily favors birthright citizenship.”
≈===
It’s not a “distraction” it’s a factual statement. Those are facts. Facts that fully support his, and many others, position. But thank you for a commentary Perry Mason Jr😺
Georgie/X spends his first-thing-on-a-Monday-morning effort on contriving some anti-Turley argument devoid of ANY “constitutional argument based on law and history.” The more he is called out for his near-plagiarism nonsense, the more he strikes out. Go one, georgie, tell us all about those precedents cited in the ABA brief. It is now 10:00 EST, Let’s see how long it takes you to look up those precedents and RE=WORD them for us.
I’m flattered you’re keeping a stopwatch on my productivity, but it’s a shame all that ‘Monday morning effort’ didn’t help you find an actual counter-argument. If you’re struggling to understand the ABA precedents, just say that—there’s no need to project your confusion onto my schedule.
Why so much effort to insult rather than report? Must have hit deep eh?
A real intellect would just write convincing discussable content, but you a serial bigmouth, uses lies and deceit.
Amen, and he copy-catted the “I’m flattered” part on top of it! What a useless joke he is.
X-ray: Turley’s point was that the ABA’s brief was conclusionary and lacking legal merit. Moreover, Turley pointed out that the filing by the ABA gives the misleading appearance that most lawyers agree with its position, when in fact, the ABA doesn’t come close to representing most lawyers. No ad hominem here…
It is indeed ironic to call a brief ‘conclusory’ while offering nothing but a series of conclusions to prove it. Since you’re interested in a breakdown, here is the reality of the situation:
The ‘Representativeness’ Myth: While Turley argues the ABA doesn’t represent most lawyers, this is a distraction from the legal arguments themselves. As of 2025, there are roughly 1.37 million lawyers in the U.S.. While ABA membership has fluctuated, historically representing about 14% to 24% of attorneys in recent years, their role isn’t to be a polling body but to set the Model Rules of Professional Conduct that almost every state adopts.
Legal Merit vs. Opinion: Claiming a brief ‘lacks merit’ without citing a single conflicting statute or precedent is the definition of a conclusory statement. The ABA’s briefs typically focus on upholding Rule of Law and professional standards, which apply to all licensed attorneys regardless of their membership status.
The Ad Hominem Trap: You claim ‘no ad hominem here,’ yet the entire argument rests on attacking the messenger (the ABA’s membership numbers) rather than the message (the legal precedents cited in the brief).
Lets down to detail? George is no lawyer, no experience whatsoever, has a no discernable education credentials, at best high school. It shows.
His MO is too lie and taunt.. Raise a credible or accurate point, about his fallible comments, he resorts ti insults. That about right George?
Does your mommy know you spend all day on the internet? Be careful, it’ll lead to terminable psychosis.
“. . . the legal consensus heavily favors birthright citizenship.”
Speaking of fallacies (which JT did not commit): You have a twofer — appeal to majority and to authority.
Birthright Citizenship is National Suicide
“… Americans of a century ago would have been baffled that foreign enemy leaders who happened to be born to foreign nationals in this country were somehow immune to being killed in battle or that their citizenship couldn’t be quickly and easily removed. Back then most of our modern problems were unthinkable because committing treason, aligning with any foreign government, including joining its army or voting in its elections, marrying a foreigner or just returning to your home country meant denaturalization. (As did dodging the draft or deserting from the military.) …”
By: Daniel Greenfield ~ March 26, 2026
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22370/birthright-citizenship
Alt.:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/birthright-citizenship-national-suicide