Citizenship Fraud and Naturalization

Hey folks, Mark Levin here. Before we dive into today's episode, I want to talk about my go to gold and silver company. Monetary Gold is over twenty five years helping Americans understand physical gold and silver with an education first, no pressure approach and support for IRA eligible options. Monetary Gold has a complimentary guide. It's free to help you understand precious metals Call them right now, eight seven seven now goold or visit marklvesgold. com and request the free guide. Make sure to ask for details. That's eight seven seven now goold or visit marklvesgold d. com. Performance may vary. You should always consult your financial and tax consultant. Now let's get to the show ' here broadcasting them from the underground command puzzle. Deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a nond descript building, we've once again made contact with our leader at Mg Lo love them Here are number eight, seven, seven, three eight one, three eight, one, one, eight, seven, seven, three eight one, three eight, one, one. I'm not going to be as generous My friend Hugh Hwitt or some of my other friends who've been on TV and radio Some saying what a swell job the Supreme Court did and Robert's decision was absolutely brilliant I spend a lot of time today going through them very, very carefully and not quickly I will be on Hannity tonight and I wanted to wait not appearing here and there this afternoon So I could consume it all and break it all down A lot of people say, well now we go to the constitutional system, the amendment process. When's the last time the Constitution has actually been amended It's been a long time, hasn't it Go ahead and Google that mrter Producer. you'll be surprised. When is the last time Now Well'll go ahead and Google. You're about to find out.s not not recently, I' tell you that You see, ladies and gentlemen In order to have a constitutional amendment, then I'll circle back As you know from listening to this program, there are two methods. Number one The only methods's ever actually been used You need two thirds of both houses of Congress to adopt language for an amendment They post have to agree on it Then it goes to the states with the legislatures of the conventions thereof. requires thirty States to approve. Three fourth of the states Now how many of you think that you're even going to get anything close to two thirds of the House or Senate to change birthright citizenship. None of you, assume because it's never going to happen Then we have Convention of States, which is really a fantastic organization. I'm strongly behind it The problem is we don't have thirty four states that have signed on yet. I think we have twenty or twenty two, which is remarkable under the circumstances sllow but sure But that process isn't ready either. And then on top of that, look how everything is switched The court just went ahead and constitutionalized something that's not in the Constitution, has never been in the Constitution And now it's up to you and me to undo it while getting a Cstitutional amendment passed So you're going to have a lot of u A lot of these senators, these Don Quote types were basically fraudulent I introduced an amendment to the Constitution to do this or that And unfortunately, it's not going to go anywhere. What we need to do Is if there are vacancies on the court, put constitutionalists on the court And that's how Row was reversed That's what's going to have to happen I'm not talking about packing the court We don't do that I want to briefly go through some of the points that I made online As I went through this, I try to put it in very plain English and very concisely. on this birthrights citizenship issue, but there's something fundamentally shocking Let's start Chief Justice Roberts begins his opinion arguing that the states and their framers relied on English common law in writing the fourteenth Amendment. But that isn't the whole story They used it as a guide, but rejected it when they felt it conflicted with our constitutional system certainly is not a sound argument to use it as a basis for the fourteenth Amendment to the Civil Rights Act that preceded it. They were addressing specifically the problem of some formly Confederate states the civil war to recognize freed black slaves and their children as citizens with the full and equal rights enjoyed by all other citizens. Now what am I talking about there? Early on in the opinion is the foundational basis. for his approach to the language in the fourourteenth Amendment And he returns to it later in his opinion as well. He emphasizes English common law from the sixteen hundreds English common law, he argues, incorrectly When you were born in the sovereign territory of the king of the monarchy automatically a citizen for most situations, okay? A citizen of what a citizen to the sovereign. That is a citizen to the king That was your sovereign And so of course, the king viewed Anybody born in my kingdom as allegiance to me. They came Now what's the problem with that? That's not what the founders of our country, the framers of the Constitution said Obviously English common law from time to time as I've wrote here. had a had a guiding impact on what they might do, but they abandoned it often. And they certainly didn't adopt this viewpoint When constructing the fourteenth Amendment in eighteen sixty eight or the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six that preceded it That's not how they viewed things And so the entirety of this opinion that Roberts puts out that the majority has signed ono is based on a false premise And yet he needs to do this Be what the hell hese is he going to base it on? I'll explain it. Let me go on Now, he references interestingly, Thomas Payne and some of the others And I say I'm a huge fan of Thomas Painne powers of persuasion during the Revolutionary War had little to nothing to do with the formulation of the fourteenth Amendment Roberts creates a hodgepodge of references to make what is basically an argument looking for founding principles He must For the truth is this case was so straightforward And the facts and history so clear The majority had to do what lawyers do when the facts and the history are against them, create contrivances Now this part of Robert's opinion is especially absurd. the a dominable Dred Scott decision, the abominable Dred Scott decision had nothing to do with immigration, let alone illegal immigration. It held that Freed blacks and black slaves were not citizens And Congress could not even ban slavery in federal territories thereby upending the Missouri compromise. This would lead in great part to the Civil War, which also had nothing to do with immigration, let alone illegal immigration And I write as I continue reading the Roberts opinion, that is the court's decision. It does a grave injustice to the purpose of all constitutional, legal, political, and ultimately military conflict aimed at dealing with and then ending the enslavement of black people Instead, it attempts to grate more generalized policy and legal arguments that are simply deceiving. The terrible wrong was the enslavement of black people, not some immigration policy That's what was that issue The only purpose of the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six was to use the power of the federal government confring all former black slaves and their progeny the same rights that applied to all other citizens because of continuing resistance in the former Confederate states That's why it was called a civil rightights Act, not an immigration actct when President Andrew Johnson vetoed it It was clear to the Republicans that they needed to enshrine it into the Constitution. Thus was born the fourteenth Amendment As Roberts continues moving through his decision, He again appeals to English common law as the basis for the fourteenth Amendment. but notice what's missing. Where all these stirring speeches by members of Congress? and the state ratifiers supporting Robert's proposition Keep something in mind. Listen, this is important Two thirds of both houses of Congress Ppose amendments to the states In turn Three fource must ratify amendments That means despite all the debates and speeches that occurred around this amendment. Roberts and the proponents could not find support for their position You get my point, Mr. Producer If he is taking the position that the framers embraced English common law that this is how they view jurisdiction. The one once born in the sovereign of the king then you were a citizen. to the king applied to our country. when it surely did not Where all the great talkers, all the great speech makers, all the great Dlarations For members of Congress sen it in the House from legislators where some of the greatest orators existed Where were they standing up and saying This was their position On birthright citizenship. there's not one. There's none They don't exist Because the focus was the terrible problems that arose in the South after the Civil War, the rise of the Kan The horrendous violence and the lynchings against blacks. The overall difficulty with reconstruction. Congress and their states, we're not thinking about birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. They weren't glued to the ideas of English common law The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth Amendments were about creating the constitutional protections for freed black slaves throughout the nation, not citizens of other countries who hadn't even arrived on our shores legally or illegally The extent to which Roberts and the majority have to rewrite our history to reach the decision is an ugly business And we come back to this word jurisdiction where Roberts makes the same argument as those who've always supported birthrights citizenship make. That is, jurisdiction means physical jurisdiction The pregnant mother is in our country illegally and has her baby in our country. The baby is granted immediate citizenship according to this argument because he goes back to sixteen hundreds English common law where if you're born in the land of a monarchy Then you are a servant, a citizen, an automatic citizen to the monarchy Think about this for a as a matter of logic Does it make sense to you Does it make sense to you pregnant woman comes into our country and confer jurisdiction on her baby simply on her own. Does that make any sense? Do you think that's what the framers had in mind Wherever the country from where the parent comes continues to treat that baby as a citizen of their country So that's not exactly allegiance to our country. And how can the baby have an allegiance to anything? because the baby doesn't even know what's going on? And why are these exceptions for babies born of of diplomats and so forth. Do the fourteenth Amendment, if it's interpreted as Robert insists Great exceptions of any kind Now we're going to continue I happen to think the Roberts opinion is absurd. Very Result oriented, very activist But he gets that fundamental issue wrong as I posted what an hour or two ago. That is excuse me English commommon law iss a guide, sure But they didn't abide by it like it's the Bible and they rejected aspects of it like this one I'll be right back. What Then. If you missed out on gold in twenty twenty, if you missed the rally in twenty twenty five, it's not too late. Right now gold is sitting about twenty percent off its all time high earlier this year, so you could buy it at a discount. The fundamentals that drove gold over five thousand dollars an ounce, they're still strong. It's a limited commodity. You can't just print more of it. Gold often remains your hedge in times of inflation war and political uncertainty So get diversified and add gold with monetary gold. For twenty six years, monetary gold has helped Americans own gold and silver in a tax sheltered retirement account like an IRA or a four hundred one K. fiveive stars of the Better Business Bureau and consumer affairs. Visit markloves goold dot com or call eight seven seven now gold for a one on one consultation That's eight seven seven six six nine. four, six, five, three. Plus, get a free guide to owning gold at markarklovesgoldot com or call eight seven seven now gold. Performance may very consult your tax and financial professional Welcome back to America Shall we continue? I think we shall Now this language is important, jurisdiction. Go back to this word jurisdiction there Listen to me, I'm walking you through it ome back to the word jurisdiction where Roberts makes the same argument as those who've always supported birthright citizen makeake. That is Jurisdiction means physical jurisdiction. You're here, That's it. So if a pregnant mother, is in our country illegally and has her baby in our country. The baby is granted immediate citizenship according to this argument for two reasons. Number one, under British common law the subjects born. in the king's kingdom are subjects? Well, that's ridiculous. That's not what the framers believe, but that's that. Number two It's the plain language. It says jurisdiction. What else could it possibly mean? Now as I said, does that make sense to anybody So a foreigner can unilaterally confer jurisdiction on herself illegally, I guess. by conferring then jurisdiction on her soon to be born baby by coming into the United States illegally That defies simple logic So is that What the framers of the fourteenth Amendment meant? Of course not. And they never said that And meanwhile, the country from where the parent comes continues to treat the baby as a citizen of their country. China does this now The language states the following in the amendment All persons born are naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. Notice. The authors did not leave it at all persons born. were naturalized in the United States. Our citizens They didn't say that They added language. That would have been enough So why did they add superfluous language superfluous lang because the rest of the sentence is key to what they intended. sububject to the jurisdiction there of So all persons born are naturalized to the United States. No they didn't say are citizens They said subject to the jurisdiction thereof It means subject to the political allegiance to our country and no other a fundamental duty of loyalty to our country patriotism art of this civil society, illegal bonds societal ties exchange for which you receive the legal rights and protections afforded all citizens Somebody who just walks into the country, none of that applies If you missed out on gold in twenty twenty, if you missed the rally in twenty twenty five, it's not too late. Right now gold is sitting about twenty percent off its all time high earlier this year, so you could buy it at a discount. The fundamentals that drove gold over five thousand dollars an ounce, they're still strong. It's a limited commodity. You can't just print more of it. Gold often remains your hedge in times of inflation war and political uncertainty So get diversified and add gold with monetary gold. For twenty six years, monetary gold has helped Americans own gold and silver in a tax sheltered retirement account like an IRA or a four hundred one K. fiveive stars on the Better Business Bureau and consumer affairs. Visit markloves goold dot com or call eight seven seven now gold for a one on one consultation eight seven seven six six nine four six five three. plus, get a free guide to owning gold at Marklvesgold d. com or call eight seven seven now goold. Performance may very consult your tax and financial professional Mark doesn't suffer pools well So, if you're a poool Don't call eight, seven, seven, three eight one three eight one one Pretty shock. Pretty shocking I think Basically, what Roberts has done is rewritten American history That's what he's done Let me go on Now they point to this eighteen ninety eight case. Supreme Court case, United States versus Wang Kim Ark That case is totally irrelevant has nothing to do with babies of illegal aliens. That case involved the birth of a baby from lawful, permanent Residents. Hello, lawful permanent residence not the baby of an illegal alien But the language in that opinion was so broad and so Over the top that Roberts used it as do others in the birthright legal world, by the way, to apply to babies born of illegal aliens. But that has no No relevance So you can see that Roberts and the court majority were looking for an outcome in dressing it up as a constitutional decision. And in doing so, they've taken judicial activism to new heights The decision will have enormously detrimental cultural, societal, legal, economic, and national security consequences And now we are told that we, you and me, we must amend the Constitution if we wish to change what a rogue chief justustice and court majority did in abusing our constitution Knowing full wellell Two thirds of members of Congress will never vote to send any amendment to the states that alters what half of Congress intentionally did to our country and that there are not enough states evenven with a convention of states to ratify an amendment thirty eight states When and if we get to the magic number of thirty four states supporting a convention in time to stop the ongoing damage So you and I are supposed to have a discussion with each other on how to fix this The way we fix it is more serious constitutional conseratives on the court. Roberts and Barret severely undermine us I know I have a friend out there online who it's all the wonderful things Barrett voted for and so forth and so on. That doesn't fix this It doesn't change this There's some decisions that are of much more importance than others. This is a huge deal This is a big, big deal constitutionalize something that's not in the Constitution, the claim that it is to rewrite American history, as a Republican apponed, chief Justice is appalling Pauling We use British common laws as a guide from time to time. but have never been wedded to it. Never. We're a constitutional republic That's what we are. Now. Robertson has majority twisted the history of the fourteenth Amendment and just constitutionalized birthright citizenship, knowing full well that our nation, like Europe facing this grave threat from within. Now Clarence Thomas' descent is long and absolutely brilliant. And he gets into this issue of jurisdiction. He says, wait a minute Let me tell you what jurisdiction means in America page after page after page Ecuse me, he points out in American history Jurisdiction means domicile. Where you domiciled? Even today. I'm in this state. I'm in that state. Great. whereere are you domiciled where you're domiciled you get the vote, whereere you'reomiciled you pay your taxes. whereere you're domiciled, the law applies to you. Where are you domiciled? That's how Americans view jurisdiction he points out Where are you domiciled And he does more than that. step by step history and constitutional l brilliantly methodically unravels every aspect of Robert's argument Alito the same thing, another brilliant descent The brutal takedown of Roberts in the majority. And he hits too at this constant reframe about British common law being the basis of our understanding of citizenship No, it's not. talking about allegiance to a king. Even Britain abandoned that And yet that's the entire basis for jurisdiction pretty much And in the Thomas decision, which is also cited, the dissent, Ballyly quote after quote after quote of the of the authors of the Civil Rights of eighteen sixty six as well as the eighteen sixty eight fourteenth amendment to the Constitution But everything I've just told you hasn't been told to you by a single lawyer on television. byy a single legal reporter on television Be this is what I've done all my life take court decisions, especially these important court decisions. and break them down and break them down In eighteen sixty six, they weren't trying to preserve English common law, they were dealing with a real problem. In eighteen sixty eight. In eighteen sixty six, they still had rebel states They refuse to acknowledge or recognize The legitimacy of black citizens And the Klan was started. The lynchings were horrendous. The beatings, the rapes just disgusting. Horrendous and they needed to deal with it. They weren't thinking about immigration for God's skes, let alone aliens. and illegal aliens and their children. If I'm wrong, prove it Show me where, Show me anywhere A Cstitutional amendment, that's not a little thing suuper majority of the House and the Senate super duper majority of the state legislatures They're all debating, they're all talking, they're giving speeches, they're newspaper reports. S me, showh me, they can't show us. So they rewrite American history. That's what they did They rewrite American history Now let me tell you something else that bothers me about all this By trying to expand what took place in eighteen sixty six and eighteen sixty eight, by trying to expand And that whole notion that this was directed specifically A getting square, getting it right, getting it straight with our fellow black human beings to make sure that their lives to be free and equal and participate in this country We're talking about illegal aliens now the children of illegal aliens. that was one of the purposes of the fourteenth Amendment In other words, we're we're dumbing down We're dumbing down the purpose of all these actions that took place It had nothing to do with British common law. It had nothing to do with immigration. It had nothing to do with the children of illegal aliens We were trying to get square with slaves, former slaves and their children The thirteenth Amendment abolishes slavery officially. The fourteenth Amendment Equal rights due process That freed black slaves and their progeny We're to be treated as other Americans. And then the fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote H nothing to do with the children of illegal aliens And you read these comments online. Read these comments on Or what did you expect? We have one hundred and fifty years of this. What are we going to do? reverse it right away You know, what's interesting about that comment? Just as Kavanagh wrote something, in his decision which was very technical Oh He voted that the The executive order violated a federal statute. He didn't really take a big position on the Constitution So people are saying it was a five four decision. It was a six three decision. No, it was's a six three decision because he voted down the executive order for whatever the reason It doesn't matter he voted it down but not on constitutional grounds He said along the lines of the compromise that I was even thinking they might do. which is We're not going to constitutionalize birthright citizenship. It's not in the fourteenth Amendment. I don't care if they've been practicing it for one hundred and fifty years or not. And by the way, that's not correct for forty years after the fourteenth Amendment My view, the president's view the view of other. solid constitutional conservatives. Our view was the view that was upheld and followed for forty years after the adoption of the fourteenth Amendment So it wasn't one hundred and fifty years. That's said Congress could do is the following The fourourteenth Amendment does not say that just because you're born in America of illegal aliens, you're a citizen Congress that the fourourteenth Amendment does not say Congress can't grandfather in all those people who are already treated as if they were birthright citizens. So in other words, you have somebody here who's eighty three years old Okay They've been here since they were fourteen years old. And so what he's saying is, Congress can still pass a statute and say, look We're cutting off birthright citizenship on this date. anything forward, no good Wh is the point I made. I thought the Supreme Court might actually do that But no Bidge too far Am I making sense? You understand my point, Rich? If not I want to repeat it So there is a fix quote unquote. If Congress wanted to do that kind of a fix It doesn't have to apply to everybody going back. God knows how long But that said What this court did was You want to open the floodgates, Democrats. You want to break existing immigration law, Democrats. You want to fail to uphold the law, which by the way, is a violation of the Constitution. Democrats, well, you're gonna to be rewarded. Your party's going be rewarded. The illegal alien's going to be rewarded Everybody's going to be rewarded No matter who's coming in. So if you have a terrorist, a female terrorist who comes into the United States And she comes into the United States, let's say from Qatar. she has a baby in America baby is a citizen of Qatar and the United States of America. Then she takes him back to Qatar raaises the little bastard as a terrorist. then that citizen can come back to the United States Because he's American citizen folks This has son Pier. born in America, taken back to Turkey, radicalized Terror back And you see what happens Communist Chinese, whyy do you think that they're pushing for hundreds of thousands birth rightright babies in our country shoot, they've set up a hole Assembly line, massive system whereere these pregnant Chinese women come here from commommunist China, they have their babies and they immediately take them and go home They're creating spies. Saboteurs peopleople who will be loyal to China, not to the United States This is what the framers of the fourourteeenth Amendment were talking about. They didn't have China in mind, obviously But there needs to be a political allegiance, a loyalty as Clarence Thomas puts it, some kind of Domas a relationship with the country You don't just walk in and have a baby And you confer citizenship on that baby by giving them birth, That's insanity And the idea that in the middle of reconstruction and all the hell that was taking place immediately after the Civil War that that's what these men were thinking of was discussing shame on John Roberts It's an appalling decision. It's a rewrite of American history. We're not subjects to a king. We are a constitutional republic. And no, the word jurisdiction does not mean What he says it means and the basis for what he says it means I'll be right back.ome What If you missed out on gold in twenty twenty, if you missed the rally in twenty twenty five, it's not too late. Right now gold is sitting about twenty percent off its all time high earlier this year, so you could buy it at a discount. The fundamentals that drove gold over five thousand dollars an ounce, they're still strong. It's a limited commodity. You can't just print more of it. Gold often remains your hedge in times of inflation war and political uncertainty It diversif and add gold with monetary gold. For twenty six years, monetary gold has helped Americans own gold and silver in a tax sheltered retirement account like an IRA or a four hundred to one K. fiveive stars on the Better Business Bureau and consumer affairs. Visit marklovesgold dot com or call eight seven seven now gold for a one on one consultation eight seven seven six six nine four six five three. Plus, get a free guide to owning gold at marklubvessgold dot com or call eight seven seven now Gold. Performance may very consult your tax and financial professional I will be on Hannity tonight It's the only show I'm being on because it's the only show I wanted to go on because I wanted to really digest all this And I'm not sure a pop up Pinion on it. decision that includes about two hundred pages of comments and so forth and so on that it could be done properly in that short bit of time I see my buddy Hugh Hewitt. You know, Hugh's a rhino, but he's an old friend of mine. I believe he's an old friend of Robert's. I could be wrong He thinks this is a great day for constitutionalism I am prepared to debate anybody on my program here and what a great decision this is because it's an abomination. There's not a damn thing great about it. rewriting American history, basing it on the power of the king. ignoring how we constitutionalists, But even more than that, the framers, including the framers of the fourourteenth Amendment thought and what they said is unacceptable to me and I am prepared to debate. I saw the vice president Did an interview I forget who with Knowles is the guy's name Michael Ks. But I could be wrong about that where he said it's time to abandon Milton Freeman for Hamilton or something of that. effffect I think what he meant was it's time to abandon Jefferson and Madison for Hamilton andince Jefferson and Madison were really the adversaries to Hamilton Obviously Nilt Freeman was a free market Austrian school economist among other things, a great, great man But the original relative free marketers were Madison and Jefferson and their Iilk. Hamilton is loved by the left Do I owe you something? Is that what you're trying to say I can get back into this a little bit later. That's a debate I'd love to have. Love to have because Hamilton you know, these are my areas of expertise where I have a lot of fun. Hamilton was more than about centralized big government He also rejected major aspects of the Constitution after it was adopted, even though he argued for it. I'd love to get into that I'm not done. I shall return This segment of the podcast is exclusively sponsored by PureTalk. PureTalk offers great coverage and can save your family money on your wireless bill every single month. Go to pureTalk dot. com to find the plan that's right for you Thank you again for listening and thank you so much for this sponsorship, P talkal He's here Now broadcasting them from the underground command puzzle, deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker. Somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader atit. loved end Hello America. Mark Levin here. our number eight seven seven, three eight one, three eight one one, eight seven seven, three eight one, three eight one one. We're here with our friend Hansz von Spakovsky with advancing American freedom You know, Hans, I I wanted to take time today to read all these opinions And I thought John Roberts's opinion was appalling a complete rewrite of American history. And before we get into specifics, tell me what you think Oh, I agree. Justice Alito and Justice Thomasiscerate eviscerate Roberts's opinion and basically both of them say I, they wrote separate dissents. Both of them point out that Roberts's got the history our history and particularly the history of the fourteenth Amendment completely wrong I mean, they're just not historically accurate and, you know Alido was right when he says, this is one of the most important decisions in the entire history of the Supreme Court And Roberts and the folks who joined him just made a very Serious mistake I don't know how You're where Roberts is. beinging honest and make a mistake purposely rewrote American history. He purposely uses British common law like Like somehow we're stuck in British common law. We've always used British common law as sort of a guidepost, but we've abandoned it many, many times And This whole notion and he kept going back to it is what I took out of this. I wrote notes to myself. I put them online as well. Others are doing the same apparently But I did it on my own because I really wanted to understand this from my own perspective You know, he's talking about in the sixteen hundreds. that you know, if you're born in in the land of the king, you're the subject of the property. What he really meant is you're the subject of the king And so he treats that as a carryover and that was in the minds of those who wrote the amendment, the Civil Rights Act in ' sixty six. and then in eighteen sixty eight, the fourteenth Amendment No what wasn't That's a flat out lie, is it not It is. And in fact, Alito points out that this that history that he's pointing to, as you say, it had nothing to do with citizenship It was saying that if you were born in England, you were a subject of the king and you could never get away from that. And you know, Alito says that's a curious claim and pretty ironic Roberts issues a decision Claiming that Van as we were about to celebrate our two hundred fifteth anniversary in which we declared independence and rejected. We specifically rejected that idea And then is these references to Thomas Payne and I'm reading this and others and I thought now he's trying to find principles foundational principles to fit his And there aren't any. What hell does Thomas Payne have to do with Birthright citizenship. absolutely nothing. No, it doesn't. But look, he was If you reach through that opinion Uh If I was a Robert, I would fire all his law clerks if they are the ones that presented him with this research. I give you another quick example of how he just totally distorts things and how he's selective Um Robertson bokes Frederick Douglas and a statement that Douglas made saying the Constitution knows that all the human inhabitants of this country as the people to supposedly justify this. But Thomas points out that he fails to mention that Douglas himself argued that blacks were citizens because why They weren't comparable to temporary visitors. They weren't aliens. They weren't strangers They were Americans who unlike temporary visitors, owe equal allegiance to the US government. That is not the case with aliens who are here illegally. They owe their allegiance to their native countries Have you been watching the and I want to name individuals or networks? Have you been watching B. leegal commentary on this, it's been so Not in every case, but so awful, don't you think for the most part Oh, it has been. And again Look, it's a long opinion. it's two hundred pages, but it's well worth reading Thomas Alito's dissent. I actually think look, look,'re you're a student of Supreme Court decisions, I think these dissents by Thomas Alito may be some of the best dissents they have ever or opinions they have ever written in entire careers on the court. Mhm And they're very complimentary. In other words, I noticed theolito sites Much of the research done in Rist in Thomas' decision Um And he takes a little bit different of a track, but they wind up at the same place. Not a significant difference, but I feel like they were both so appalled that they felt like they had to write their own thing. What do you make a Kavanaugh? Kavanaugh doesn't He He basically says, lookook, the executive order violates federal statute fill in the blank. He's not really going to get to the constitutional issue, but he's going to vote with the majority because he doesn't think the executive order is lawful so wow, that's kind of I don't get that either because I don't think he makes the case that the executive order somehow violates the federal statute. All the federal statute does is repeat the language of the fourourteenth Amendment. So that doesn't make any sense. I look, there's one One very interesteresting section of Thomas' dissent again where he talks about how the majority denigrates his evidence Well, he points out the evidence that Roberts ignored, which is that for example, the representative of a guy named Bingham, who was the architect of the fourteenth Amendment, said the censorship Clause didn't apply to the children, the temporary visitors. Senator Trumball, who was the principal champion of the amendment agreed and the guy who introduced the citizorship Clause into the fourourteenth Amendment, Jacob Howard said exactly the same thing. yet Roberts and them they just kind of ignore all that And what's interesting also about Thomas, he literally quotes from these guys extensively And I notice the way Roberts does it is very dishonest too. I'm just being honest, folks. But I want Hans's tag just to make sure I'm on the up and up here He takes like four words out of a paragraph or a sentence and throws it. He said this. he said that. That's very disingenuous, don't you think Oh it is. and that's looks like that's that's what he did, for example with Frederick Douglas and he does it with all these other historical examples, which is why Both Roberts and Alito said that Uh What he relates is historically inaccurate. and is just not the truthful story of the fourourteenth Amendment Couldn't you tell from the oral argument, though? Roberts was completely disinterested. He didn't want to tackle this blew off really the the the The arguments, it was a weird conduct I thought by him Well, it was weird except that you know what it reminded me of, It reminded me of what he did in the Obamacarea decision. Hot twenty say that s funn you to go ahead and I'll tell you my view. Yeah because yeah, because remember, the story came out that that he realized Obamacare was unconstitutional. It was beyond the power of Congress and in fact agreed with the four other conservative justices, but apparently at the last moment flipped changed his mind, voted with the liberals because he thought the political consequences would be too severe. And I get the impression from the oral arguments. I think like you do that he had made up his mind ahead of time that it would be too politically hurtful somehow if they agreed with the Trump administration on this issue I remember when that case came out, the decision came out, I was on the air. rememember this, mrter prodducer And I'm reading it out loud and I said, wait a minute, there's typos in Wait a minute. paragraphs startn't fitting together. Somebody voteed and it had to be Roberts. Remember me getting into there rich As I'm reading the decision, I said something happened in the last minute here Because who reads an opinion like that? And not only that, the tax clause and so forth and so on. It was ridiculous the way he twisted the tax provision of the Constitution, which is a bit arcane and use that. to uphold Obamacare. In other words, he was grabbing whatever fig leaf he could, and I feel like he's done it here too, no I think that's your point. Oh no. Yeah, no, I think that's exactly right. And U You know, Alito, Alex said, long to sense, but there's one point in which Alito sense Um D Roberts, the courts interpretation is saddling this country with an ancient British rule that even the United Kingdom has aboned has abandoned It's crazy. U, but then Barric goes along with it. What do you think's going on there? You think they just didn't want to deal with this with just too much pressure, controversy and so forth No, I think that's it. although look, she she issued a bad decision on Monday too and in the mail mail balloting case, where again We had terrific desents from Alito and Thomas and Actually two of the other justices pointing out how bad her decision was and how wrong it was historically wrong in the way our election process has worked for two hundred years. Bers me a lot that we have justices who want to come to these conclusions. I get it on the left. I get it with the three. I really do But when you look at Roberts, with the Obamacare decision. you lookuck at him writing this decision. You even look at the The Dobs decision. He really didn't want to go for that. He tried to get them to walk off quote unquote, the The window sill he wound up going with it. He told him, canan we find sort of a middle position on this and so forth and so on. When you get Not all, but some of these really big cases, he ducks. He really does duck. He's very concerned about the reputation of his reputation and of the court, I think, rather than In some cases, the Constitution. what do you think of that Oh no, I agree. In fact U I think that sometimes he's so concerned about a decision of the court looking political that he takes steps which he thinks will make it look like they're not engaging in political decisions and it has the exact opposite effect. It makes him look Political H Any anythingthing else you saw in Robertst's decision? I just feel like he spent a lot of time on distractions on shiny objects Um to try and persuade people that that this is what jurisdiction means and citizenship means and Um I just feel I feel like it was a very long opinion that didn't tell us a hell of a lot. No, I just it was just badly written. It was historically inaccurate And Despite the fact that he sometimes has, you know, issued good decisions like in the one about Harvard and stopping racial racist admissions, I think this decision And the Obamacare decision will forever poison his legacy on the court And these are these are massively important decisions. I mean, this decision here it's going to I mean, think about it a second. There they are Reconstruction is going very, very poorly You've got these horrendous things being done to fed black slaves in the South violence and lynching and the Klans growing and I mean, basically in eighteen sixty eight, Grant has to send the army down there, right to try and settle things down and And the idea that these men in Washington, they were sitting there thinking about immigration and the children of immigrants and that this was somehow an immigration Amendment It was an amendment based on the eighteen sixty six Civil Rights Act. They wanted to enshrine it in the Constitution because they saw that Johnson vetoed. the law and they were afraid that Democrats could take over and reverse everything. Isn't that the basis for this to try and the thirteen, fourteteen, fifteenth Amendments, to try and make things right? for the previously enslaved blacks that had nothing to do with all the rest of this stuff No, that no, that's exactly right. And they even Look, he even misconstrues The last opinion that the Supreme Court had on this one hundred and thirty years ago, which only said that the children of permanent resident aliens would be citizens. Now I don't think that was correct, but it did not go as far as Roberts and his cohorts claim it No, fact it has nothing to do with it, As you just pointed out, those ra different plaintiffs Those were permanent citizens, right? Right, exactly. Those are not temporary sojourners as they called them in the eighteen hundreds. and in our case today, people who are in the country illegally. All right, Hans, what do you make of this now people say? Well let's take a break. comeome back. I want to talk to you about what people are saying the remedy to all this is. We'll be right back. What America doesn't stand for two hundred and fifty years as a beacon of hope without the brave men and women willing to put their lives on the line to defend it. And to honor those patriots, Pure Talk and its customers will raise two hundred fifty thousand dollars for America's wararrior partartnership by the end of July. Now this is an unbelievable foundation. It stands on the front line of helping to prevent veteran suicide by covering the basics Housing, access to VA benefits, transportation, counseling, the tangible things that give veterans a hand up. When you switch your cell phone service to PureTalk this month, you have an opportunity to round up to support America's Wrior partartnership. PureTalk will match that donation tntill the total donation hits two hundred fifty thousand dollars. So get unlimited talkks Unlimited text. Unlimited high speed data, just three thousand four doars ninetiney nine cents a month folks. and be proud to partner with a wireless company that shares your values and was founded by a veteran himself. And that's pure Talk. Go to pureTalk dot com slash Lvin. That's pureTalk dot com slash L EvLN to switch to my favorite wireless company right now. PureTalk. Again, that's pureTalk dot com slash Lein Hansz Barnpakkovsky of advancing American freedom. Don't you love it now, peopleople say, Well, now we need to amend the Constitution. We need to have a debate among the American people. Number one Let me ask you a realistic question What are the chances of two thirds of the House and the Senate? agreeing to change this court's ruling and then sending it to the states for three fourths of those states to change it. What's the likelihood? You're going to get any Democrats You're going to get anyy rhino Republican to join in Isn't this a constitutional matter? No. No. I mean, look, over the history of the United States, there have been literally hundreds of constitutional amendments proposed and only a small handful have gotten through. given the opposition The Democrats have shown not just on this issue, but on basic issues like Pof of citizenship too be eligible to vote they they would fight this tooth and nails. There's no way they can go through. I mean, the other alternative A is triggered by, you know, the very last paragraph of his descent Justice Thomas says I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time. If we could replace Um, mhm Two the justices on the court, perhaps one, if Kavanaugh could be persuaded. and take this a new case back up to them then hopefully they could overturn this bad precedent. I mean, just today at the same time they released this opinion, Mark Um They released another one in the campaign finance area that overturned directly. a precedent from two thousand one that they said was wrong and it violated the First Amendment. Yeah, you're right Now that's what's going to do it. We're not going to be able to amend the Constitution. excuse me And that's really the only alternative. You know the Democrats would be talking of a pack in the court if they didn't get the decision they want. That's not what we do Listen, you've been a bulwk on this. I want to thank you and hang in there. We'll talk later, okay All right, thanks, Mark. God bless. takeake care of yourself. We'll be right back America doesn't stand for two hundred and fifty years as a beacon of hope without the brave men and women willing to put their lives on the line to defend it. And to honor those patriots, Pure Tk and its customers will raise two hundred fifty thousand dollars for America's wararrior partartnership by the end of July. Now this is an unbelievable foundation. It stands on the front line of helping to prevent veteran suicide by covering the basics Housing, access to VA benefits, transportation, counseling, the tangible things that give veterans a hand up. When you switch your cell phone service to PureTalk this month, you'll have an opportunity to round up to support America's wararrior partartnership. PureTalk will match that donation till the total donation hits two hundred fifty thousand dollars. So get unlimited talkk Unlimited text. Unlimited high speed data, just thir thousand four doars ninety nine cents a month folks and be proud to partner with a wireless company that shares your values and was founded by a veteran himself. And that's pureTalk. Go to pureTalk dot com slash Lvin. That's pureTalk dot com slash LvN to switch to my favorite wireless company right now. PureTalk. Again, that's pureTalk dot com slash Lvin Yes, it's true that Mark LeVven is the fastest growing radio show in America. The Mark Leven show is on at eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one. Let me ask you a question Let's say you live in New Jersey You walk into Pennsylvania And you declare I'm a citizen. Pnsylvia Does that make you a citizen Pennsylvan Let's say you're pregnant And you have your baby in Pennsylvania Does that make your baby A citizen of Pennsylvania? Of course not. First of all, babies don't have free will. They're the citizen of wherever their parents are Look at all this cockamamei All these kckamimi hoops we have to jump through in order to buy this. This notion of birthright citizenship Tell me if you walk into another country and you're pregnant, And you have your baby, You think that other country iss going to say, Oh yeah, yeah, that's a baby of Canada. Of course not This is all concoction A concoction It's an outrage And yet this is where we are right now It's important to spend time on this because Like we did Obamacare, like we have some of these other big decisions. If I don't do it, who's going to do it? Nobody No offense. Wh's even capable of doing it who his on radar? Nobody. And so we go through this. And it affects your life This isn't something that sounds aloteric This is the real deal And what John Roberts has done here with his sidekick Barrett and Kavanagh in a very bizarre decision. he's been doing very well lately I cannot explain Now here's the smartest lawur in the family who's walking in. No you don't want to talk about it Hall. You can have to speak into the microphone. She's gonna to have to learn that. Yes I'm appalled at what was done to the United States Constitution today This is one of the biggest decisions in our lifetime. and one of the worst Because now these Islamists come in They give birth to children, then they go back home And then they come back. The commommunist Chinese are doing this like an assembly line. Is this how you create a A country? Is this how you get people to assimilate into your country What are we doing when a Supreme Court lies about our own history uses The sovereignty of the king as the basis for arguing, that if somebody's born here on the soil that they're a citizen because you know, there is this British common law in the sixteen hundreds that if you're born on the soil of the sovereign, Then you're a subject to the sovereign Constitutional republic Whatever British common law We might like to emulate It still has to be washed through the belief system of a constitutional republic. What do you think? I think you're one hundred percent accurate. And I also think that if you asked fromom a common seell perspective An American on the street, they would also agree with that. I mean, you have very, very particular and advanced knowledge about the Constitution and what it says. But from a pure common sense perspective What this did is just as bad as what Biden did when he flung opened the doors to our country. You're right Here you have it from the authority in this household anyway Thank you, dear terrible is this Let me give you another example. The Constitution, they specifically exempted Indians Indians from the citizenship cllause in the fourteenth Amendment. Does anybody know why Because Indians have an allegiance also to various Indian nations. It's the Navajos or the Hopies or whatever it is And so they specifically excluded them from being automatic citizens in the United States because of the That kind of a citizen situation Just crazy Absolutely crazy I want to read something to you sububject to the jurisdiction. was a familiar way to describe as Thomas writes the relationship of a domiciliary to his home nation laawyers in America would have known that a person was subject to the jurisdiction of the place of his domicile Think about it in your own lives, in your own place. You're subject to the jurisdiction of a county, you're subject to the jurisdiction of the state. Why? Because you live there or you do business there, Not because you walk through it. Congressman confirmed that the clause should not be construed to refer to the bare territorial power that a sovereign exercises over a persons in its territory, quote I understand the words here are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, said Senator. Reverend Lee Williams to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The word jurisdiction is here employed, said Senator Howard These are people involved in these statutes and a your moment. or to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction. The same jurisdiction extend and quality extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now The citizenship clause, Senator Trumble agreed means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof, I'm quoting them through Thomas's opinion. So although in one sense, all persons born within the geographic limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, Senator Williams explained, some were not covered. by the citizenship clause because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States everyvery sense Each of these descriptions precluded applying the citizenship clause. children of temporary visitors who unlike children domiciled here We're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense And it was on this basis. Congressmen believed the clause fixed in place the rule of the Civil Rights Act Senator Trumble stated that the citizenship cllause like the Civil Rights Act would still exclude all persons subject to a foreign power Qote What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? N owing allegiance to anybody else That is what it means, quote unquote. Senator Howard agreed. theseese are the authors that the citizenship clause in the fourteenth Amendment. would not, of course, include persons born in the United States Who are foreigners aliens who belong to the families of emmbassy Let's see here. Ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States And shortly before the citizenship clause was introduced Senator William Fezidin, a supporter of the amendment, explained persons may be born in the United States and not be citizens of the United States then gave the example of a person who was born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country a citizenship clause just like the Civil Rights Act alsoso excluded from citizenship, the children of tribal Indians meaneing Indians whose tribes retain sovereign authority over them They were specifically excluded. So John Roberts had to deceive and connive and lie to get to where he wanted to go Everything I just read to you, which is a matter of public record which his clerks could have found Justice Clarence Thomas and his clerks found all but ignored. Instead he goes back the sovereignty of the king. where we are the subjects If you're born, On the king's land Then you're a subject to the king And he says, that's the basis for jurisdiction Because we all know those rabble rousers who founded our country We're glued To British common law, we all know that's a lie They followed it or they didn't following it But they washed it through the constitutional Republicanism That is America I hope this is helping people understand how bad this is how bad this is and how dishonest The majority is Chief Justice among them The leader of them We'll be right back. America doesn't stand for two hundred and fifty years as a beacon of hope without the brave men and women willing to put their lives on the line to defend it. And to honor those patriots, pure Tal and its customers will raise two hundred fifty thousand dollars for America's wararrior partartnership by the end of July. Now this is an unbelievable foundation. It stands on the front line of helping to prevent veteran suicide by covering the basics Housing, access to VA benefits, transportation, counseling, the tangible things that give veterans a hand up. When you switch your cell phone service to PureTalk this month, you'll have an opportunity to round up to support America's wararrior partartnership. PureTalk will match that donation till the total donation hits two hundred fifty thousand dollars. So get unlimited talkalk Unlimited text. Unlimited high speed data, just three thousand four doars ninety nine cents a month folks and be proud to partner with a wireless company that shares your values and was founded by a veteran himself. and that's pure Talk. Go to pureTalk dot com slash Lvin. That's pureTalk dot com slash LvN to switch to my favorite wireless company right now. Pure Talk. Again, that's pureTalk dot com slash Lein You now know more about the fourteenth Amendment the citizenship clause In this subject, than most of the lawyers who've been talking about it all day. That's why you're here and that's why I'm proud that you're here. We take the time I do to study these things and actuallyctually read them at length. They will be on Hannity tonight to discuss it with him. As you know, I've been talking about birthright citizenship for probably a quarter of a centy quarter a century, said there's one gentleman who I like who posted Well what do we expect that they would overturn one hundred and fifty years of Practice. First of all, it's not one hundred and fifty years. As I said, forty years after this amendment was adopted, they were interpreting it the way we interpret it. But that said Yes, we expect them to do something of that sort, and Congress can step in and and fix it. You don't need a cononstitutional amendment to confer citizenship They didn't say you You must give citizenship, but Congress can, if it wants to, it's up to them But don't hand me, all we have to do is amend the Constitution We're not fools here. We're not fools. We know what that process takes. And it's not up to us to fix a bad Supreme Court decision And one day this decision will have to be fixed. It's just going to get harder and harder and harder as the demographics change. and now look at the motivation The Democrats will fling open again the borders. People that come in here illegally, birthright citizenship. There comes a point in which you can reverse it So people who say, calm down, take your time. They're not adults. they're not mature They're foolish. I would say you better get rev up and you better get concerned And we have to find ways to deal with this electing more conservatives so we can get more conservatives on the court Be cool. It's okay. We'll figure it out. No, that's not the way this works We're in the middle of a revolution against us. Look around. how much more evidence do we need So our betors, quote unquote are not our bets. Those of you who are concerned, you see what's going on, you're the bets That's why you're in this audience And I'm with you This is a very, very big deal and very troubling. We got a lot of people want to get on. I don't normally go this early, but let's go early Let's go to Mike. Gainsville, Virginia, the great WMAL, go right ahead, please Hey Markh Lvin, a pleasure to talk to you sir Thank you, Mike You know, the subject of the jurisdiction issue is about a baby, a newborn baby, subject to the jurisdiction thereof to a baby implies allegiance and nothing else. It's not about domicile. It's not about being a taxpayer. It's about whether a state or nation can claim that child as one of theirs So no that's not correct at all whether a state can claim it is one of theirs. Wh does it say that Well I'm talking about the nations. the foreign nation of the foreign nationals that are here has. First of all, you need to read these opinions so you know what we're doingaling about. I tried to do the best I could a Thomas's point is yes In America means domicile That's jurisdiction That's what it meant when the colonies started. That's what it meant when the colonies became states. That's what it meant when the nation became a nation domile as opposed to we were born here, therefore We're subject to the sovereign, whether it's government or not That's number one. He makes the point correctly and I do too It's a baby They can't make these decisions So they are domiciled wherever their parents are from. That's where they're domiciled. That's number two. Number three, if you don't like the domicile argument, the other argument, which is equally important, but I think they overlay is you have to have some connection beyond temporary physical existence in a state in a country partarticularly if it's the baby giving you're giving birth to a baby and The baby has no connection to anything except the parent And u There needs to be something more. So political allegiance means a loyalty, a legal connection, a societal connection somethingomething connects the individual with the governing entity or the nation And in return in this civil society They get protection, you know, like with police, there's law and order and that sort of thing I think they both overlap. It doesn't bother me at all. Go ahead Well, I think we're sort of agreeing and disagreeing on a minor point at the same time. I do agree that the baby's domicile probably belongs to where the parents are citizens. And that means that the child is a citizen of a foreign nation at the same time that it's being born here So there's no reason for the baby to get a dual citizenship at birth in our country if it already has a nationality somewhere else. Correct. an allegiance to another country, right? You're right hundred percent It doesn't even make any sense Plus, here's the other thing Here's the other thing, Mike. There's no record of them ever saying anything like this There's no history to this. Zero Good car. From America's revolutionary War to Israel's fight for survival in nineteen forty eight, both nations have faced moments that tested their courage, yet freedom endured. Through generations of challenge and triumph, America and Israel have stood as beacons of courage, democracy and faith. bound by shared values and a common belief in freedom. The United States and Israel continue to stand together as allies, as friends, and as partners in the cause of peace and security. As America celebrates its two hundred fifteth anniversary, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews honors the enduring friendship between the United States and Israel. Two nations united by faith, liberty, and hope. You can show your solidarity with Israel and the Jewish people by requesting your free US Israel flag pin from the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. We're proudly to show your unwavering support for both countries. Sign up to receive a free USA Israel flagpin when you go online to Leavin for thefellowship. org That's L EvN for thefellowship. orgot He's here Now broadcasting them from the underground command buzle in the vous of a hidden bunker. someomewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader Mg. Lved N Hello America. Mark Leivin here our number. eight seven seven, three eight one, three eight one one, eight seven seven, three eight one, three eight one one. We're gonna move on somethingomething I hope you'll Fine, interesting I saw somewhere today and I mentioned this earlier that JD Vance had mentioned he prefers Hamilton to Milt to Milton Freeman Well, a lot of liiberals like Hamilton. Remember the play Hamilton that was in New York, Maybe it's still there. They loved it Because in modern parlilance, he's considered the big liberal, the big central government liberal. And he and Jefferson hated each other's guts and Mat he and Madison hated each other's guts I'd love to discuss that. We've tried to get JD on and he's tried from time to time They contacted Mr. Producer earlier this week asked about Tuesday at at six forty. The problem with six hundred forty is that gives us five minutes. So we said, how about six hundred and thirty five? that gives us ten minutes and they couldn't do it I don't know why. Um I mean, if they want to talk, it's going to take more than five minutes. I'll ask one question, it'll take four minutes and that'll be the end of it, right? Rich? I mean, we can't do that So that's kind of ridiculous Happy to have themem, though. It's a lot to get into, but this is my new interest because of him raising it. And u Hamilton is very interesting since he brought it up So the left likes Hamilton The the so called nationalists populist, they like Hamilton I'm a Jeffersonian Madisonian And I know I am and I'll be that way for the rest of my life Let's talk about this I'm looking up the section here that I wanted to read to you. of my book on powerower. It's the most important little book I think in twenty years Let's look at this Let's look at the most influential founders, Alexander Hamilton His notion about liberty and the role of government often conflicted with Jefferson's and Madison's Indeed, it turns out that Hamilton is among the most popular, if not the most popular foundounder, among those who today support a more centralized toiv this govern There's good reason for this Hence the popularity of Hamilton the Broadway musical, especially with the elites in entertainment, media and politics ammong others and mostost academicians examxamining Hamilton, I begin with Madison who wrote in Federalist forty five, the powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few andeined Those which try to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite Madison wrote the formmer will be. exerciseed principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce with which the Last, the power of taxation will be for the most part to the states Powers reserved to these several states will extend to all objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people in the internal order improvement and prosperity of the state. So you can see that Madison, like Jefferson, Like so many the foundist believe in a very limited central government. Now this was the overwhelming view of those who I'm getting this from my book on power just so you know. This was the overwhelming view of those who drafted and ratified the Constitution Obviously, Hamilton fought for the Constitution's ratification along with Madison and to a lesser extent, John Jay He wrote the pro Constitution Federalist papers. Nonetheless And it's important to recall that as the constitutional con that at the constitutional convention, Hamilton, according to Madison's notes on the proceedings clearly demonstrated his affinity for a powerful central government Is that what you folks favor And if so, what's happened to you powerful central goverment can turn against you on a dime Consider that he proposed that his Hamilton, quote, letting one branch of the legislature hold their places for life or at least during good behavior Executive also be for life Anybody here support that appeal to the feelings of the meembers present This is Madison writing Whether a term of seven years would induce the sacrifices of private affairs, which an acceptance of public trust would require so as to ensure the services of the best citizens. On this plan, we should have in the Senate a permanent will aw waiting interest Which would answer esssential purposes. So a permanent president Hamilton's idea was quickly dropped as it had almost no support Professor Raa Berger, one of the greats in his book Federalism, the Fers' design did more than Most to delve deeply into the matter of implied, this is important, implied and conversely expressed powers That's crucial to determining how much liberty actually exists within democracies The exercise of implied powers is too frequently an abusive exercise an unauthorized power. Oh, that power is implied. No, it's not. Oh yes, it is. Central to the constitutional scheme, Reitzberger was restriction of the federal government to few defined and limited powers and assurances the state's residuary powers would be In valuable He explains that in federalist number thirty three, it was Hamilton. who sought to ease any concerns that states have had to the cononstitution that they were establishing a federal government. that would reach outside its express powers. Hamilton wrote, and I quote, What is power but the ability or faculty of doing a thing. What is the ability to do a thing but the power of employing the means necessary to its execution? What are the proper means of executing such power but necessary and proper laws Madison stated, writesbererger that the clause gives no supplementary powers It only enables them to execute the delegated powers. So in other words, Hamilton saying Hey, look, what's the big deal I need whatever power I need I should get and take whatever power I need to execute as I'm free to execute Madison says, wait a minute No You get no supplementary power. You do only what you're allowed and delegated to do Moreover, this was the clear understanding in the state ratification Cventions, the plain text of Article one, Section eight Clause eighteen of the Constitution refferred to as the necessary and proper clause. this is what leftists hang their hat on make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers No other powerowers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States. Professor Berger observed that The records make plain that the necessary proper clause was merely designed specifically authorizing the employment of means to effectuate to carry into execution, granted powers and granted powers only augment them And they strongly read against the doctrine of implied powers Imlied powers, which means anything you want it to mean, right? So to be clear, Congress was not granted discretionary power by way of implied powers to legislated will Despite Hamilton's assurances He believed energetic central government. He was doggedly committed to this end. as a close confidant of President George Washington, as Treasury seecretary So putting aside his eloquent defense of the Constitution during the crucial state ratification debates Subsequently after that, it appears Hamilton had different intentions once the state legislatures has adopted the document For example, in seventeen ninety one at the request of Washington and in defenseive the constitutionality, the proposed bank of the United States which was vehemently opposed by both Jefferson and Madison. Hamilton wrote in part It is not denied that there are implied as well as expressed powers and that the former implied powers are as effectually delegated as the latter And for the sake of accuracy it shall be mentioned that there is another class of powers which may be properly dominated resting powers It is conceded that implied powers are to be considered delegated equally with expressed ones. Now that's obviously not the case He said this restrictive interpretation of the word necessary of necessary and proper clause is also contrary to this sound maxim of construction, namely that Powers contained in a constitution of government, especially those which concern the general administration of the affairs of the country, its finances Trade and defence, etceter are to be construed liberally An advancement of the public good This role does not depend on the particular form of government or on the particular demarcation of the boundaries of its power but only on the nature of the object of government itself. So you get the rest. I'm not going to read it all, but it's pretty bad See, I'm not a Hamiltonian And when JD says he is a Hamiltonian, this is very, very interesting to me and I think That ought to be a point of discussion Anden, you know, they'll say, well, he favor the bank and he saved our financials. So what? We know that's true, but he believed in more than that. That's just the That's the short explanation. There's much more here. Hamilton argued for a tatonic shift away from the near universal understanding the Cstitution structure which drew the strong ire of both Jefferson and Madison among others And they argued that Congress had no power to create such a national bank that it was the role of the states to create banks if they so desired. They were furious with Hamilton's assertion of implied powers in his expansive reading of the Constitution, especially when they had conveyed exactly the opposite in the federalist papers and in the arguments in the states, to ratify the Constitution The debate over how to interpret the Constitution erupted early in the Republic and it would only get more intense Not only would the manner of interpretation be disputed, but also Who should interpret the Constitution and had the final say. And I go on there dealing with Marthall So Hamilton was relatively radical early on in breaking away from the confines of the Constitution And this is the problem with so called nationalism populism They have slogans America first thingsings of that sort. But what are their principles What are their governing principles? What are their Political principles. What are they And this is where the overlap, if you will. occurs with the left. There's nothing new with this sort of paleoconservative or nationalist populist ideology It's been tried before During various courses, cycles in our history But is that what you are or you a constitutional concernat I mean, if we have Republicans who believe that a powerful central government is the way to go and you have Democrats believing it also, then where does I leave us This is why you have people who are huge fans of Theodore Roosevelt. I think the president is a fan of Theodore Roosevelt. I think The vice president others are too, I am not Theodore Roosevela was a progressive By his own definition When he ran third party, against Tafton Wellils and he ran on the Progressive partarty. They called it the Bull Moose partarty, but it was the Pgressive partarty. And he wrote a very extensive article in the New Republic back then in the early nineteen hundreds. which laid out the case for effectively a quasi socialist economy. I'm telling you the truth The reason they wanted to get him the hell out of New York is governors because he was rad fairly radical Interventionist So I'm not look, I respect him a lot. his presidency, the man was shot You know And he kept giving his speech and so for He' a remarkable man. He was a great war hero too. So don't get me wrong. I'm just saying he's not on my top of the list and yet for many people he is particularly those who are so called nationalist populists The Constitution exists for a reason. It's not just if you're Republican or a Democat or You're national populist or a Marxist Islamist, it's there to protect you and me from all these people all their ideas all ideologies There's a gentleman God who wrote GA D GAD, I'm sorry. He was on the program and wrote a book called suicidal empathy It's a great book But it's built on the notion that Montescieue talked about that we've talked about here too. where's warning about so called virtuous people And he explains, it's not the only one, but prominently so during the Enlightenment. Montesquieue explains you got to keep an eye on the people who want to use government to pursue virtue becausecause their virtue may not be what you think virtue is. And they are so righteous and so self confident about their ideas about virtue to become a grave, grave threat. CS Lewis warned about the same thing The same thing. Virtue Now, they're virtuous people doing virtuous things. That's not what they're talking about. They're talking about politicians. who want to use government in ways They become almost impossible to question or match or check or whatever. Keep in line They want equality We want affordability We want low prices. Oh great. What does all that mean? if you're a politician? mean It could mean a number of things And so he was right So I side with the Jeffersonians and the Madisonians One, the author of the decclaration, the first draft, the other the follow the Constitution And I do not side with Hamilton. It's not to say he didn't do some good things. I mean, a lot of people who I disagree with have done some good things. That's not the point point is what things pushing, what's their ideology? what's their objective, generally And a lot of what Hamilton was preaching was very ceing. Fr my perspective We'll be right back. Mark Lin With Donald Trump back in office as one of his biggest adversaries, top Democrat Dick Durbin of Chicago is leading the charge to derail President Trump's agenda at every turn. And now Durbin has a new scheme, a government takeover of your credit card. Right now Americans have thousands of credit card options, all with equal strong security, but Senator Durbin's plan could result in less security. That means more risk for your credit, your identity, and your financial future. Durbin's bill isn't about helping consumers. It's a giveaway to corporate megastores, which could shift costs onto you while putting your rewards and fraud protections in jeopardy. We've seen Durbin's fail policies before His last big banking regulation backfired, leading to higher costs and fewer benefits for American families. Tell Republican senators, stop Durbin's government takeover of your credit card before it's too late. Learn more at guardyourcar d. com That's Gardourcar d. com paid for by the Electronic Payments Coalition What I do hear on radio can't be done on a podcast, it can't be done on TV Because podcasters want fights and F bomb and so forth and so on It's not me. I can't do that U TV that's Ttally different, much tighter form here. This is why I love this format, Conservative talk radio. I love radio. I love our affiliates satellite and everybody else who's handling this. I want to thank you because we can dig very deeply And one day I'll be gone and maybe this format will be gone and Nothing's going to be able to replace it Really nothing's going to be able to replace So I know we're blessed all of us M anda Let's go to Sister Maria Chicago, Illinois, the greatreat WLS. Sister Maria. how are you Oh, I'm doing fine. In January, you asked me to call back if I had questions, so I'm calling back. Go for it. Okay, now my my concern is one of domicile. And my opinion is that if we don't set up criteria for dual citizenship and we're talking you know what I misread the clock, sister. Let me get right back to you. Don't hang up talkk to Sister Marie as soon as we return, I'll be right back You didn't start a business just to keep the lights on. You're here to sell more today than yesterday. You're here to win. Lucky for you, Shopify built the best converting checkout on the planet, L with just one tapping, ridiculously fast acting, sky high sales stacking, championed checkouts. That's the good stuff right there. So if your business is in it to win it, win with Shopify. Start your free trial today at shhopify dot com Slash win. Mark with then. The thunder on the right. Call in now eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one. All right. System of here. Chicago, Illinois, WLS go right ahead, please Okay. My concern is one of DOvAile And I don't know how we set up criteria for dual citizens about voting in our elections And I'm talking about the children of people kindina flies over here, the cartels from Mexico flies over here Because when those children are eighteen, they are coming back here to vote in our elections. N percent right not to the benefit of the United States. No, you're right, sister. and there's nothing that can stop it right now. Nothing The court just ruled the way it ruled It did so without any factual basis or historical basis. It was very deceiving what John Roberts did And just appalling You know? I don't know what to tell you. And we can't try to set up criteria for dual citizens voting Well, we can't do anything. Be they just ruled the way that they ruled. Okay. Okay Now If you're a citizen of the United States You're also a citizen of let's say, Batswuana You can vote in Botswani and come back here and vote in the United States erri And when you vote in the United States, you're going to vote the way Botswana wants you to vote. I agree with you because they're going to pay for your airfare to come over here to do this You know, we have to remember what immigration was supposed to be about. Immigration was supposed to be about the improvement of our country and the improvement of a lot of the citizen who's here notot to replace us, not to destroy our country, not to do any of these things And we seem to have lost the The entire premise of immigration, the entire premise. All right, sister, thanks for your call. We'll keep rolling here. Let's go to Esther, Brooklyn, New York. How are you, Esther that's if I'm going to answer that question, I'm going to be on the phone for the next half an hour. I can't be with you.' to call Mayor. Man Danny is mayayor. I refuse. Anyway. So let's talk about this ruling today about birthright citizenship. We had the discussion in Brooklyn Tea Party approximately fifteen, eighteen years ago We were talking about already then about jihadists and Islamists And we were and the head of the Tea Party forgot what his name was quoted some I forgot the d which dataabase or which databank that Muslims have seven children per household versus Jewish who have six per household. Y open It might be Orthodox Jewish, but reformed Jews barely have one Right. And this opens up the floodgates I mean, we have are all Muslims dead? No, I know I get along with some very nice ones. But we're not talking about them. We're talking about Islamists who want to destroy our country That's right. We have two apart we have an apartment building next door to us, two apartments that are one bedroom each. ten people live in each apartment. No must be fine. And there' mattresses wall to wall. That's what the superintendent told me. I mean, they and they still practice polygamy They come in here and they say, this is my wife. this is my girlfriend. This is my other wife Remember that show? This is my brother Darryl and my other brother Darryl I guess it's something like that. I don't know. All right, Esther, thank you. We' gota keep rolling Okay, Tim Macado Michigan what station are you listening to us on? U WIOS W IOS. or WKJC Okay, go right ahead, please. Salise Tallas. I'm from Mkado. God bless you. Hey, Mark, I am a veteran. My father was a veteran. Both my parents are from West Virginia. I was born at the Landstool Army Hospital in West Germany Wow And during civics classes as I was growing up They'd have everybody who was born overseas. We'd all raise our hands and they said, you can never become president. But yet somebody can come here illegally, drop a baby and then take it out of the country and bring it back eighteen years later And they can become president, there's something wrong with our system Isn't that frightening? Isn't that crazy? That's way frightening Yeah, my buddy he was born in the Azore. hisis dad was in the service too you don't get more American than him and I But yet, we can't become president Mhm I know. Now those bases aren't considered American territory I was born with a German birth certificate. As a matter of fact, when I was born, Landstools where they send they were sending all the wounded from Afghanistan and Iraq and stuff for treatment. But backack when I was born there, it was just a little shack for the most part But nonetheless, there wasn't even an American doctor on duty when I was born. There was a German contract doctor and two Fraul midwives delivered me But nonetheless I got a German birth certificate and when I got back to the States, my parents had to naturalize me Okay Well, you turned out pretty well, I'd say there, brother Well, I tried to, but I think our countriryes I think we're in deep trouble. There are decisions and there are decisions This was one of the biggest decisions of our lifetime. I'm not kidding because of the consequences that are involved. And it's a real Decepticon, this decision. The way Roberts developed it through British common law m Sorry, we don't live by the rule of kings. That was the whole point of the revolution that we're celebrating in a few days two hundred fiftieth anniversary, the irony of this Where' saying that British common law, which the which the founders and the framers embraced starts with the proposition, excuse me, that if you're born If you're born in the land of the of the monarchy The sovereign That you are a citizen. No, you're a subject to the king They rejected that. and yet throughout his opinion, he keeps referring to this. and he's corrected by Alito, he's corrected by Thomas And yetout it's outrageous. what this guy's done. And when you consider an amendment requires two thirds of both Houses of Congress and three fourth the state legislatures and all the debates that took place and all the all the speeches that took place and all the reporting that took place in They can't point to direct evidence. any of those debates and speeches anywhere federal, state level. That support the notion of birthright citizenship Because it's insane. They never supported that notion Anyway, thank you for your call, my friend. I much appreciate it Let's see, let's go to another vet A in the right place or not? Tim In Michigan, how are you? No, and I got that wrong Gary in S. Cloud, Minnesota, SirusXM satellite, Gary, how are you I'm doing great, Mark. Thanks for taking the call. What I'm calling about tonight is on such a dark day for America, is I'd like to bring to light that there is a way for us to potentially expose and prosecute another type of citizenship fraud and denaturalize potentially millions of citizens who became that way illegally And that is we were talking we've been talking about birthright citizenship We need to talk also about naturalized citizens becausecause there is a fraud machine cranking out naturalized citizens in this country My faulty or fraudulent medical diagnoses that let them skip the English proficiency and let them skip the civics test and basically be fast tracked to citizenship there are doctors in every major city in this country, who brag, some of them are outright advertising it, come and get your Form N six hundred and forty eight diagnosis for citizenship So they're basically selling medical diagnoses to help people who are already in the country and are naturalized in some way, refugees, natural resident aliens, whatever The fast track them to citizenship And this is still illegal, but no one's talking about it, no one's prosecuting it. And here's the real takeaway from it, Mark It's when you look at the effect of citizenship I would say new citizens, right on various states and how it affects their elections It's not just the number of new citizens that become minted in that state, right? By birthright citizenship, by naturalization or whatever is the percentage of the overall population. because that's how you win elections by being fifty one to forty nine or whatever, right They're using these fourign N six hundred forty eight medical diagnoses. I'm sorry, this is very technical, but listen to me, is this is the second most important here tonight. All right. All right. sixix of the top ten states for percentages of naturalized citizens are swing states. They're using fraud. they have a citizenship. Are you in this industry, so you see it with your own two eyes I've been involved in elections for years and I wanted to know how various immigrant groups get to vote without reading they can't understand what they're even doing at the ballot box. Someone else is voting for them So I looked into it. It's four in six forty eight medical exemptions. Every big We got it. We got it. We'll be right back. Mark Lin. So did I mention him on Hanity soon? Mister Biters Actually, I don't know what time during his hour it doesn't matter. I've just I got toa run to the other studio. The other studio is actually another room One of these days, maybe I'll show everybody I better not. So ladies and gentlemen, I ordered this book. It's been on my desk. Ayatola Kameni's Mind compp by Ayatlla Come in And I've been reading through this It doesn't get any sicker So I think next week, for the week after depending. I'm going to read some of this to you So you know what we're dealing with These people are not going away. They're not defeated, they're going to survive And they will fight another day And when Five years past, ten years pass. our kids and our grandkids are going have to deal with this. I'm just telling you I don't care how much I'm attacked or badmouth or Wh are you warmonger Those are that two IQ crowds No, I'm a peaceemonger, Morons. Islamists are dangerous. eliminating traces of intellectual moral colonialist aggression. This is the Marxist Islamist combination He was a big admirer of Hitler and Lenin Hitler and Lenin. And u They all have these little books Hitler had Min Kf. This is this guy's Min Kaf, Then you have the Cunist manifesto. When you think about all the deaths, all the horrors, torture the rape As a result of these three men in three little books Mind Kom Hitler's, Min Kampf Komani Communist manifesto. Markx and Egels, when you think of these three men, four there, but really marks and their little books, their ideologies which have much in common by the way all the death that results from that. That's why you have to take these theseese individuals who seem Well, that would never happen under this guy or that guy. You've got to take them deadly seriously Deadly seriously goes not to is a huge mistake A huge mistake Look, we got a couple of good opinions out of the court too, but I don't really care The bigig enchilada was a disaster And it's going to be a disaster for the rest of your life unless we get conservatives in and so forth and so on that. That's not going to be so easy. It's not going to be so easy to reverse this. It gets harder and harder and harder Of course, the Democrats are arguing Trump tried to. attack black people Do does this have to do with black people We salute our armed Forces, police officers, firefighters, emergency personnel, our truckers Iice The men and women in Israel, the men and women in Ukraine, the men and women in Iran, and you, the American people, God bless you. and thank you. And I'll see it tomorrow right here and I'll see you in about thirty minutes on Hannity. Okay