Below is my column in the New York Post on the historic ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, reinforcing the authority of presidents in managing the executive branch. After more than 90 years, Humphrey’s Executor is dead and Trump’s legacy is established on the expansion of presidential powers. The other winner is President Franklin D. Roosevelt who was right all along: he had the right to fire William E. Humphrey (right) as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission in 1933.
Here is the column:
On Monday, Donald Trump sealed one of the most lasting parts of his legacy. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court reaffirmed and reinforced the authority of presidents to determine who will carry out the functions of the Executive Branch. In so doing, the Court overruled one of the long-standing limits of presidential power in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
Humphrey’s Executor is hardly a household name. Yet the demise of the 1935 case represents a seismic shift in the balance of power within our constitutional system.
In this case, the court decided that President Trump had the right to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.
For decades, scholars and jurists have questioned where the Court found the authority for Congress to create a hybrid creature like the FTC — part legislative and part executive, with officials protected from removal by a president.
Various presidents have chafed at this limiting doctrine. But Trump pushed aggressively against the precedent and appointed three justices who would prove critical in ending Humphrey’s Executor after more than 90 years.
In a separate case, Trump v. Cook, the Court ruled that the president could not fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.
Both the win and the loss were vintage Trump. The win because he was unrelenting in his assertion of inherent powers.
The loss in part because he is equally unrelenting in his use of social media to carry out policy.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that more than a tweet and conclusory letter is demanded in such a removal from the Federal Reserve, which has always held a unique position in the government and prior cases.
Roberts wrote, “would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment — an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”
That does not mean that Cook cannot be replaced, but it requires due process, not a “thank you for your attention.”
It is hard to overstate the transformation of the new executive branch during the Trump terms.
The Slaughter case follows the Loper Bright decision, which ended the huge deference given to government agencies “interpreting” law to their own ends.
Past Republican presidents have criticized the ““administrative state” that was iron-plated under the prior Chevron doctrine.
The result is that our government will remain markedly different from that of many of our allies, particularly the United Kingdom. In the UK, ministries operate with a considerable degree of independence and insularity. It is difficult for a prime minister to force through major changes when opposed by ministry civil servants.
The United States has long maintained that our elections have consequences and that presidents should be able to carry out the mandates of voters.
Trump came to power with a pledge to transform our government by making it smaller and more responsive, as well as to carry out sweeping reforms in areas such as immigration enforcement. He was stymied by lower courts imposing dozens of injunctions and even federal officials who gummed up the works.
The Court has cleared much of that away for the president, and he carried out a wholesale house cleaning of agencies.
It is important to remember that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the next president is a Gavin Newsom or a Kamala Harris, the same powers will be used to reverse these policies.
The greatest danger, however, is the pledge of Democratic leaders to make the one impulsive change that could endanger the entire enterprise.
Various Democrats have called for packing of the Court with an instant liberal majority. Such a move would destroy an institution that has served as a critical moderating element in our constitutional system for 250 years.
Of course, Democrats did not balk at the Court reversing long-standing precedent when the results aligned with their views. Now, they would pack the Court to force through an agenda currently considered unconstitutional, including reversing many of the decisions in the last 10 years.
The truth is fully on display this week. This Court has exercised considerable independence. That includes repeatedly ruling against, and being repeatedly denounced by, this president.
The great philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville described this country as “a land of wonders, in which everything is in constant motion and every change seems an improvement.”
We will remain an impatient people, but the only thing that should not change is the constitutional framework for change, including the institutional integrity of the Court itself.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
“…and subject to the [FULL] jurisdiction thereof….”
Illegal aliens are subject only to territorial jurisdiction and may not be citizens.
It appears that the President now has total control of the Government, not as a responsibility, but as a weapon to be used against the American people.
No, it appears the president has exactly the powers given to him by the US Constitution.
Looks like Colorado Dems are going full-on communist too. This is a disease that is spreading. Great PR for the GOP – the Dems are now unabashedly communist. Let’s see how that plays out in the midterms.
Cubans Living In NYC Begin Boarding Rafts To Escape Communism Again
https://babylonbee.com/news/cubans-living-in-nyc-begin-boarding-rafts-to-escape-communism-again
It’s the principle that matters. Six people have fundamentally altered the meaning of the 14A, a birthright. If congress had chosen to amend would it have been so easily accomplished. What may be worse this was based on millions of lawbreakers.
This opinion has reduced the meaning of birthright and citizenship to what is common and possibly vulgar. Nothing good can come from the unprincipled.
So be it. Milk sours slowly.
Truly astounding display of ignorance here.
Firstly, the meaning of the 14th Amendment has NOT been altered by SCOTUS. This decision AFFIRMED the meaning that has always been the historical understanding. Trump is the one who tried to change the meaning and he was rebuked.
Secondly, Congress has absolutely no power to amend the Constitution.
You quite clearly failed your middle school civics class.
You make an equal and opposite error. The meaning has never been clear. The text is ambiguous. Scotus for the first time settled on what it determined the ambiguous text means. Scotus reached one reasonable interpretation, but not the only one. It is a decision worth respecting, but it was not as clear as you make it out to be.
Yet more astoundingly ignorant comments from a MAGA moron.
The historical meaning of the 14th Amendment has been clear for 160 years, without ambiguity.
The idea that the Amendment is somehow ambiguous and that this “ambiguity” has never been resolved is absurd. The idea that the Amendment is somehow ambiguous is a fiction that has only been put forth in the last couple of years by the MAGA mob, who have made an unbelievably strained attempt to manufacture an ambiguity that is entirely fictional, and exists only in the fevered imagination of the most zealous MAGA extremists.
The decision did not resolve any supposed ambiguity.
It simply affirmed the meaning that has always been clear and obvious to anyone capable of rational independent thought that is unencumbered by the influence of the MAGA cult.
The court will reverse itself. It’s a foul thing. It stands in disgrace for now.
Disgrace!!!
The meaning of the words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has never been spelled out clearly, which is why interpretation is needed. That’s a fact not an opinion. You only display your own ignorance by using the stupid, silly, childish, moronic term “MAGA moron” to cover up your own stupidity and inability to understand even the most basic, obvious facts about constitutional interpretation. You truly are the moron in this situation, and you know it which is why you comment anonymously like a coward.
This is exactly what I am talking about.
The utter insanity of the attempt to manufacture an absurd interpretation of the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction of”. The phrase has a very clear and unambiguous meaning. Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the Citizenship Clause’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” phrase refers directly to the U.S. government’s authority over individuals within its territory. It simply means that the US has jurisdictional authority over any person within the borders of the country. To believe otherwise is an absurdity.
The MAGA extremists have produced a tortured and convoluted interpretation of that phrase to mean that somehow the word “jurisdiction” also means “allegiance”, and that since foreigners have allegiance to some other country they cannot fall under the “jurisdiction” of the US. This is an absolute absurdity. If you believe that the US does not have jurisdiction over foreigners within the borders of this country then those foreigners are perfectly free to commit crimes with impunity, since the US has no jurisdictional authority over them.
If you try to resolve that insanity by saying that “jurisdiction” means one thing when it refers to birthright citizenship, and something entirely different when applied to jurisdiction over criminal activity, then you are simply playing with words in an entirely disingenuous way.
Words have meaning. You cannot simply say a word means one thing in a given circumstance and something entirely different in other circumstances, depending on the whims of your particular prejudices and beliefs.
You’ve spit on Arlington, our fathers and our mothers. You, anon, are a disgrace as you attempt to disgrace good and honest citizens of the United States.
Your insults are equally worthless as your ignorant opinions.
If Dems had their way, nobody would ever be a natural born citizen because nobody would be born. They’d all be aborted. The environment and all that. Human extinction is their goal.
After the birthright citizenship ruling was issued. Sean Davis a far-right federalist contributor. Called for court packing and a whole lot of bigoted solutions to circumvent the ruling. Is Turley going to call out this right-wing journalist? Doubt it. Fox would have a fit.
Several ways forward here given the choice of Roberts/Barrett to nullify the 14th Amendment and extra-constitutionally replace it with their own language:
1) Nullification. States issue birth certificates, and they can just stop issuing them to non-citizens. Roberts/Barrett can deal with the fallout and litigate each birth individually.
2) Pack the court. If Robert [sic] wants to be a politician who writes laws instead of a judge, then he can fight with 10 more unelected legislators in robes.
3) Deny entry to all pregnant foreigners.
4) Deny entry to all female foreigners.
5) Require sterilization of all foreign visitors prior to entry.
6) Dissolution of the Union. A nation which can’t even restrict who gets to be a citizen isn’t a nation.
7) Amend the Constitution. This is pointless, because once a judge decides he can rewrite the Constitution at will (as Roberts and Barrett did today), the actual text is meaningless. But this is what most GOP politicians gravitate towards because they are useless.
If you think all these options are not great, understand that that is what happens when unelected judges decide that they are in charge of the country and get to write its laws.
No wonder Republicans keep getting labeled as bigots and racists.
you are really one sick cookie. I stopped reading after the 2nd sentence calling out “court packing and a whole lot of bigoted solutions to circumvent the ruling.”
gee, I thought it was the far-left Hakeem Jeffries, AOC, Schumer, Crockett, Tlaib, Kelly, Pelosi, and Warren who were doing that. My mistake.
X is incapable of telling the truth. And he favors males in female safe spaces like locker rooms and showers. That is the level of mental illness that defines the Left in America today.
So you’re comparing one loose cannon whack job that nobody’s ever heard of to the entire Democratic Party platform? That’s low-IQ even by your already extremely low standards, and it smacks of desperation on your part.
This “decision” is an unmitigated judicial and governmental disaster.
Roberts must be impeached and convicted.
Tonight, Trump is considering the use of this new power to destroy the enemies of America.
Now Orange man IS coming for you leftards.
Your lips to God’s ears!
The Supreme Court is a politicized legislative branch.
The Supreme Court is high-criminal.
The Supreme Court is totally corrupted.
America is over; America is up for grabs.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
“No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The sole legal definition of “natural born citizen” in the universe exists in the Treatise, the Law of Nations, 1758.
The Law of Nations was in the hands of the members, now sitting, at the Constitutional Convention.
Jay/Washington exchanged correspondence promoting the inclusion of the requirement for the presidency in the Constitution.
The Framers wrote the requirement of “natural born citizen” into the Constitution per Jay/Washington.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, has not been amended.
Should have posted below @ June 30, 2026 at 6:43 PM
Apparently
WordPress is installing petty roadblocks to free speech.
Just a random thought. Israel is widely know as the middle east nation with the most robust protections for LGBTQ civil rights. By contrast in Gaza they through LGBTQ people off buildings.
Yet Scott Wiener, “a prominent gay Democrat who has spearheaded pro-transgender rights legislation, was surrounded and berated by protesters at San Francisco’s annual Trans March on Friday as they accused him of supporting genocide in Gaza.”
This is not a one-off. Left-wing LGBTQ marchers have consistently been anti-Israel and pro-Gaza for years. All based off a false narrative of “genocide.” I guess they are just so poorly-informed that they don’t even know how they would be treated there. Sad.
https://lite.cnn.com/2026/06/29/us/scott-wiener-gaza-israel-california
OT
Israel is reportedly preparing to “go to war with Iran.”
Israel’s lips to God’s ears.
He who hesitates is lost (i.e. Trump).
Riiiight… how was that nap?
AI Overview
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has warned that Israel could go to war with Iran “within two days” if Tehran launches missiles or resumes attacks on Israeli territory. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has maintained that Israel reserves the right to carry out preemptive operations to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.While the U.S. has pursued technical talks and peace deals with Iran, Israel remains highly skeptical and is actively preparing for potential military action. …
Being an old man, and one that’s made some very poor decisions along the way, it came to me along the trek. If God doesn’t give you what you want and need, Satan most certainly will.
Reflect and think about those that gave all so that we could have the most amazing country in the world. When you’re driving a switch back road, you don’t look behind you. You focus on what lies ahead.
I can totally understand why you have made very poor decisions in your life.
If you are simply sitting around waiting for your invisible, imaginary friend in the sky, who is really just a figment of your imagination, to hand you what you want on a silver platter, then you will be waiting a very LOOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGGG time.
He told me to tell you GFY with a pinecone. He grew one in the Sequoia Forest especially for you.
Ahhhh !!!
So you hear voices in your head as well.
Confirms that you are a pathetic loser with absolutely no life.
If I were all of that my friend, you would still have to get a ladder just to rise high enough to be able to kiss my ass.
hater
Better stop now dude, you’re already 21 points behind and its not even the second quarter…
🎱- ignore the carping pest who responded to you with hate. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree this is the most amazing nation in the world. Keep trying to do the next right thing. And remember, those who are with you are greater than those who are against you.
Yours,
Uncle Henry
Thank you Henry!
“If God doesn’t give you what you want and need, Satan most certainly will.”
That reminds me of a T-shirt I saw recently, which said something like: “the fact that there is a Highway to Hell, but only a Stairway to Heaven, should tell you something about the expected traffic volumes”. I tend toward the skeptical end of the belief spectrum, but still think there is some validity there.
☺
Rebecca Slaughter, thank you for having enough TDS to push this issue all the way to complete defeat for all democrats everywhere.
Even TDS can be turned toward good.
Trump Derangement Syndrome: The inability to discern that a convicted fraud is a convicted fraud.
^ Trump Derangement Syndrome ^
They would climb into a bathtub with a plugged in toaster if Trump told them to; their only salvation a regulation to have GFCI outlets in bath rooms by the government they hate.
^ Trump derangement syndrome ^
Exactly. the dumbocrat party is full of fraud and frauds you cannot discern.
but we took your fraud money away so get a job TDS addled loser cannot think for themselves.
It’s amazing the spin that MAGA can purchase, like today’s piece. Turley tries to claim that the power craved by Trump to just fire anyone and everyone given him by the Federalist Society SCOTUS “reaffirmed and reinforced” the power that was always there. Not so. According to Humphrey’s Executor, agencies that are quasi-legislative or “quasi judicial” in nature are controlled by the PEOPLE via their Congressional representatives, not the temporary occupant of the White House. Removal would require “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”, not the desire to reward campaign donors or enrich the President’s family or friends. Here’s what Wikipedia says about Humphrey’s Executor:
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled that the U.S. Congress may limit the power of the President of the United States to fire certain government officials, even though the president is the chief executive of the U.S. government.[2] The Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to restrict the President’s authority to dismiss the leaders of independent agencies that are “quasi-legislative” or “quasi-judicial” in nature.
The case stemmed from President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1933 dismissal of William E. Humphrey as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Roosevelt had fired Humphrey over policy disagreements involving economic regulation and the New Deal, despite the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 giving the President the power to remove an FTC commissioner only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The Court unanimously held that this limitation on the President’s authority to remove FTC commissioners was constitutional and therefore that Humphrey’s dismissal had been unlawful.
Over the course of the 20th century, Humphrey’s Executor came to be viewed as the canonical precedent for the constitutionality of independent agencies in the U.S. federal government. The decision received criticism from some scholars during the latter part of the 20th century who claimed it unconstitutionally limits the powers of the president. During the second Donald Trump presidency, several controversial firings of independent-agency executive officials spawned lawsuits challenging the ongoing validity of Humphrey’s Executor, with the decision overturned by Trump v. Slaughter in June 2026.[3][4]
Today’s flawed Federalist Society SCOTUS ruling is just another example of the “unitary executive theory” that is all over Project 2025, something that the American people soundly rejected and which Trump lied about being his agenda after finding out via the polls that most Americans oppose it. So he lies about this being his agenda and lied about bringing down the cost of groceries and energy, gets elected, and has 180 Project 2025 Executive Orders waiting for his signature. At least the SCOTUS held that birthright citizenship is protected under the Constitution. The bad news is that it was not a unanimous decision.
We really don’t want syncophantic toadies like Pulte, RFK, Jr. and Blanche running the Nuclear Regulatory Authority or the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, beholden to the whims of a narcissist liar who uses the levers of power he lied to get to enrich his campaign donors and the Epstein class that he protects. We want neutral people with expertise in the various areas of government regulation who are beholden to the people, not a politician, and especially not THIS politician. Humphrey’s Executor stood for 90 years, until MAGA got enough radical conservatives on the bench. Stare decisis means nothing to them. It’s all about MAGA.
How might President Cortez staff the SEC?
No need to read Gigi’s lunacy dump. First and last sentences – MAGA MAGA MAGA. Blah blah blah. She’s craaaaaaaaaaaazy.
Nobody’s ever explained to Gigi that the longer her screed is (and the more unhinged), the less likely anyone is to read it.
The comments that get read are the short ones.
Would explanatory cartoons help? Just like your hero, you apparently lack a normal attention span. Complex issues involving previous SCOTUS decisions that stood for 90 years deserve detail.
Would explanatory cartoons help
Concision and sanity would go a long way. You are incapable of either. Your screeds reflect that you don’t even live in the real world. You live in a world of your own creation. IOW, you have had a psychotic break from reality. You show us that every day.
Is citing Wikipedia, that has footnotes stating where the information they report came from an insane “screed”? Is that the best insult you can come up with when you don’t have any contrary arguments? I don’t write for Wikipedia and didn’t write any of the citations from their piece. The majority of non-MAGA legal scholars are literally shocked that the Federalist Society SCOTUS members simply ignore precedent and are willing to create presidential powers that the Constitution and framers never intended out of thin air, especially giving power to Trump, who is the most ignorant and non-patriotic occupant of the White House. Turley claims that this power “always” was there–that’s not what Humphrey’s Executor says or any subsequent cases dealing with this issue. The reasoning behind Humphrey’s Executor is sound–there are supposed to be 3 co-equal branches of government. The President is NOT a King, and the PEOPLE, via their Congressional representatives, are supposed to determine who is running regulatory agencies and enforcing regulation. Trump is dangerous–he has literally no morals. He exists to feed his ego and achieve power. Even before this ruling, he claimed to be the most powerful person who ever lived, comparing himself to Hitler. His “presidency” is all about self-enrichment, taking care of the donor class and mostly, about controlling all aspects of the federal government by installing incompetent and unqualified syncophants in major roles just to do his bidding. All of this is unprecedented and undemocratic.
Wikipedia is a screed unto a screed so bite me.
I Co-Founded Wikipedia. Now I’m Banned for Life.
“He tells that story for us today. It’s one that starts back in 2001, with the admirable, game-changing goal of democratizing information. But after Sanger left the project in 2002, he “watched in dismay as the site I’d created began to drift from its founding mission.” Ideological bias took hold; pages were whitewashed; left-leaning outlets came to dominate sourcing; and a small group of administrators grew “beholden more to each other than to any constitutional framework.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/larry-sanger-wikipedia-co-founder-banned
Lets not forget these gems that Gigi gave us:
The 12th amendment forbids the President and VP from being from the same state
Inflation was 13% when Trump left office (also lied and said she never said that, until it was linked, copied and pasted)
Texas makes their electricity from crude oil
Its entirely plausible that EJC was raped by Trump, standing face to face in a closet, with her leggings around her knees.
Biden did not sunbathe nude in front of female secret service agents, as VP
There is no evidence that Hunter Biden ever committed any crime
President Biden was sharp as a tack
Hunters laptop is a Russian hoax
The pee tape is real
No cites as MAGA usual. Always attack the messenger because you have no contrary facts, and just make stuff up. Wikipedia is not wrong. 90 years of Supreme Court precedent are NOT wrong. We don’t completely change the law when MAGA packs the SCOTUS with candidates from the Federalist Society who lied about honoring stare decisis. Stare decisis means that established precedent controls, but not in MAGAland. We don’t fire agency heads with years of institutional experience at the whim of a narcissist who lied to get into office by promising no new wars, lower grocery prices and denying that Project 2025 was his agenda. Regulatory agencies serve the American people–not the temporary occupant of the White House. The regulations they enact and enforce are for the benefit of all of us, not partisan politicians. We don’t want people running the nuclear regulatory agencies, consumer and environmental protection agencies and other agencies under the control of a pathological liar.
No NoNo gigi. YOu and georgie (pretending legal prowess) seem to think that our burden is to disprove you. Nada. YOU made the statements and declarations, it is YOUR burden to prove them.
So once again, gigi, you deny making those statements? Is this like the times you have denied being gigi, yet you just replied to a post about you?
Your IQ has to be about 70.
Oh my god, a politician lied to get into office!!!! Oh, the humanity!!! You stupid kunt, you have MANY times lied here for MUCH lesser reasons.
You don’t HONOR stare decisis, you apply it. And NO ONE said they would never overturn a prior decision. NO ONE. You pathologically LIE about that and have for years.
the U.S. Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida explained that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” When prior decisions are “unworkable or are badly reasoned,” then the Supreme Court may not follow precedent, and this is “particularly true in constitutional cases.” For example, in deciding Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly renounced Plessy v. Ferguson, thereby refusing to apply the doctrine of stare decisis.
this commie law has been taken down, deal with it commies! USA!
Stare decisis means that established precedent controls, but not in MAGAland.
No it doesnt, except in your delusional dreamland.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) overturned Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923)
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) overturned Wolf v. Colorado (1949)
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) overturned Betts v. Brady (1942)
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) overturned Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which explicitly overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) regarding corporate political spending.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), which threw out nearly a century of precedent under Swift v. Tyson (1842) and fundamentally altered how federal courts handle state law.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) overturned Baker v. Nelson (1972)
Minturn v. Maynard (1855) stood for 136 years before being overturned by Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines Inc. (1991), altering a century of maritime contract law.
Swift v. Tyson (1842) stood for 96 years before being overturned by Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), fundamentally shifting how federal courts handle state common law
Low v. Austin (1872) stood for 104 years before being overturned by Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages (1976), changing state taxation rules regarding imported goods.
The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890) stood for 124 years before being overturned by Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2014), on the issue of executive branch foreign affairs power.
Paul v. Virginia (1869) stood for 75 years before being overturned by United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass’n (1944), determining that insurance companies are subject to federal antitrust laws under the Commerce Clause.
You are DEMONSTRBLY and OBJECTIVELY a fvcking IDIOT
Yup, Gigi is a first class idiot.
The detail is you lost again to Trump!
Unemployment about to go way up in DC.
Conclusion under this view: The FTC Act is unconstitutional because its text authorizes actions completely absent from the enumerated powers in Article I and Article III.
That’s a lot of words for you to say you lost to MAGA as always. Crushed again, doesn’t it drive you mad? NOW trump is gonna fire every fed soy boy pal of yours. get mad, get real mad THIS time! Ha! Trampled by MAGA and you cannot take it! delicious!
Humphrey’s Executor was an unconstitutional pile of crap. now you got nothing and Trump has all the power. shoeprints on your face.
What fresh hell can this be…
There are now three categories of citizens: natural born, birthright, naturalized. Natural born has yet to be fleshed out.
Law of Nations, Emmerich de Vattel, 1758, Book 1, Chpt 9, Section 212, Citizens and Natives
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________
“[The Law of Nations] has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,” Ben Franklin letter to Charles Dumas, 1775.
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
___________________________________________________________
Obongo will never be a “natural born citizen” and will never be eligible to be president.
John McCain was born in Panama.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father.
George Romney was born in Mexico.
By your definition, none of them were “natural born” citizens.
All of them were candidates for president.
Wrong, of course, but nice try.
A natural born US citizen is one who was a citizen at birth. That can be true of someone born outside the US if his parent(s) are US citizens.
Ted Cruz is a natural born US citizen (his mother was a citizen born in Delaware). John McCain’s parents were both US citizens at the time he was born. George Romney’s parents were US citizens. All three were natural born US citizens.
As usual you entirely miss the point I am making.
I am not saying that they are not natural born citizens.
I am responding to the lunatic at 3:12pm who says. “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
This nutcase defines natural born as being born “in the country”.
As usual you entirely miss the point I am making.
First of all, since you comment anonymously, there is no way for me to know what your “usual” point is.
Besides all that, you read more into my comment than I wrote. All I did was lay out the facts. I didn’t say anything about your supposed “point.” So take that chip off your shoulder, you might actually enjoy life.
McCain Was Not Eligible And Propped Up By The Deep State
The “Not Natural Born” Argument (The Statutory Gap)Critics, most notably legal scholar Gabriel J. Chin, argued that McCain was technically not a citizen at the exact moment of his birth:The 1934 Law: When McCain was born on August 29, 1936, the active citizenship statute was the Act of May 24, 1934. This law granted automatic citizenship to children born abroad to U.S. citizens, but only if the citizen parent had previously resided in the United States. Because McCain’s father was a naval officer who had lived extensively on overseas deployments, critics argued he did not meet the strict residency requirements of the 1934 text.The 1937 Correction: Recognizing that children of military personnel in the Panama Canal Zone were falling through a legal loophole, Congress passed a specific law on August 4, 1937 (now codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1403). This law explicitly granted retroactive citizenship to anyone born in the Canal Zone after 1904 to an American parent.The Core Objection: Because this law was passed 11 months after McCain was born, critics argued he was a “naturalized” citizen by a later act of Congress, rather than being “natural born” (a citizen from the exact second of birth).
The Prevailing Legal DefenseConstitutional experts, federal judges, and the U.S. Senate rejected the loophole argument based on a broader interpretation of the law:The 1795 “Limits and Jurisdiction” Rule: Scholars like Stephen E. Sachs defended McCain by citing the Naturalization Act of 1795. He argued that historically, Congress intended for children born to U.S. citizens anywhere outside the standard borders of the country to be considered citizens at birth, meaning the 1937 law was a clarification of an existing right, not a brand-new grant of citizenship.Bipartisan Legal Consensus: Top constitutional lawyers from both political parties reviewed the case and concluded that the Framers of the Constitution intended “natural born citizen” to mean anyone who is a citizen by birthright without needing a naturalization ceremony.Judicial and Legislative Dismissal: When lawsuits were filed challenging McCain’s eligibility during the 2008 election, federal courts dismissed them. Simultaneously, the U.S. Senate passed Senate Resolution 511, declaring that McCain’s birth to American parents on a U.S. military facility fully satisfied Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
“The Prevailing Legal DefenseConstitutional experts, federal judges, and the U.S. Senate rejected the loophole argument based on a broader interpretation of the law”
AREN’T YOU the same goof-off that just got done criticizing textualism???? Now, you cite “broader interpretation” of the law?
Mildly interesting the laws are different for children of citizens. There isn’t such a requirement for foreign nationals excluding ambassadors of course.
The courts opinion was written by Google, popular opinion. I do like the natural born angle otoh.
John McCain was born on a US military base in the Panama Canal Zone to two US citizens. One actively serving in the military as an Admiral. You need to find a better example DB.
Ted Cruz is not a “natural born citizen” according to the Law of Nations, which is the only treatise in the world that defines the phrase “natural born citizen,” a phrase used by Jay and Washington when promoting the idea of a constitutional requirement that only a “natural born citizen” could become president, while others may define “natural born subjects.” Cruz was not born in the U.S., and his father was not a citizen at the time of the birth of the candidate.
It’s not entirely clear that the Law of Nations controls the meaning of “natural born citizen” as used in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
AI Overview
A “natural born citizen” means anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth and does not have to go through a formal naturalization process later in life. This includes individuals born within U.S. territory, as well as children born abroad to at least one U.S. citizen parent. The exact phrase is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, but legal scholars and the Congressional Research Service generally agree its interpretation relies on two historical British common-law principles:
– Jus Soli (Right of the soil): This principle dictates that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen at birth (with rare exceptions, such as the children of foreign diplomats).
– Jus Sanguinis (Right of blood): This principle dictates that citizenship is passed down from parent to child. Under U.S. law, children born outside the country are citizens from birth if their U.S. citizen parent meets specific physical presence or residency requirements.
While the exact boundaries of the term are sometimes debated by legal scholars when applied to unique situations (like a candidate born in a U.S. territory vs. a foreign country), it universally excludes naturalized citizens from becoming President or Vice President.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
“No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The sole legal definition of “natural born citizen” in the universe exists in the Treatise, the Law of Nations, 1758.
The Law of Nations was in the hands of the members, now sitting, at the Constitutional Convention.
Jay/Washington exchanged correspondence promoting the inclusion of the requirement for the presidency in the Constitution.
The Framers wrote the requirement of “natural born citizen” into the Constitution per Jay/Washington.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, has not been amended.
The Constitution is not beholden or subordinate to any other source of law. Not even the law of nations. It has to be interpreted on its own terms. You may have an argument but it is not the only argument. It is not the slam dunk you seem to think it is.
Jus soli- right of the dirt like feudalism, rule of the manor, serfs and peasants. YOU’RE MINE NOW! tsk tsk hahaha
Good one
oh NOW the leftys are all about the rules…
Do you ignore John Locke in life, liberty and property?
because this is your dumb idea about it. limited intelligence pushed to overheating i suspect
Apparently
can we call the leftys unnaturally born?
I don’t see any criminal illegals subjecting themselves to our jurisdiction.