14th Amendment, Birthright Citizenship & the Supreme Court's Power Play

Jack Moore: Welcome to more to consider. Jack and Charles. Charles, how are you, sir?

Charles: Doing just okay. Yes. ⁓ yeah.

Jack Moore: Doing okay. I think I know why here. All right. So we did a show some time ago, and I've heard some others sort of go down this road about the question that we knew was going to reach the Supreme Court on what does the 14th Amendment actually mean? What are the what are the words meaning born in the United States mean and subject to the jurisdiction thereof? What does all that mean? And it was gonna end up going to the Supreme Court, and it did. And you made the argument, which I think is quite interesting, because I think that there's some like logical basis for it. It was at a time where after the American Civil War, there were these, as we talked about, the 1866 civil rights legislation that sort of defined citizenship. And they're like, well, okay, that's not going to be good enough. You know, we're going to have to make this nail this in a little bit heavier. So let's do a constitutional amendment. So the 14th Amendment is ratified in 1868. And then there's another civil rights bill. In eighteen seventy to kind of clean up some more messes. So you you would be of the view that it was really addressing the end of slavery. And what does it mean to these people who were clearly born on the soil, but did not carry, according to Dred Scott in eighteen fifty-seven, did not carry a recognition of citizenship. Now I I read something recently and they were like that the Fourteenth Amendment.

Charles: Mm.

Jack Moore: didn't overturn Dred Scott. And I think that's true. Nothing overturned Dred Scott. That was the argument. There was no Supreme Court. In other words, there was no Supreme Court ruling that overturned it. They never came back later and said, ⁓ we got it wrong. But in effect, the Fourteenth Amendment did so it was an interesting point. Somebody in the comments, like, I keep always hearing these idiots say that it overturned it. It wasn't a Supreme Court, right, right. But the 14th Amendment, in effect, we could argue.

Charles: Right, right. No. It it it nullified it. Yeah.

Jack Moore: It nullified it. Yeah, and I think you could even say that the eighteen sixty six civil rights legislation may have done the same thing by defining citizenship post war. But then you got a ratification of the amendment. So we have this decision, and let me just really quickly go with what we have. The majority, j Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Coney Barrett, and Brown are all in the majority. And of course the dissenters were Thomas and Alito, namely. and they and Kavanaugh, right? So, and then ⁓ what's the other ⁓ the ⁓ the other of the four, right? And I know who it is, and I've just it's totally slipping my mind, but of course, what this is gonna scream it's two justices, but namely one. Roberts has been going kind of lefty or

Charles: Cavern. I can't remember his name.

Jack Moore: We say lefty, progressive, whatever you want to call it, quite a bit at times, but I don't know that people necessarily thought Amy Coney Barrett was going to go this direction. Maybe, maybe not. But now I did you go now, which what's your first take? Go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm going what's your first take?

Charles: Right. Yeah. Sorry. I as a black person look at it as a slap of the face, just really, because this was meant to address as you stated earlier, what what do you do with the slaves that were just freed? Because there was nothing in the constitution that said that that black people ac no, actually freed slaves were citizens.

Jack Moore: Yeah, it's an argument.

Charles: There was nothing that said that. So they had to adjust had to address it. They didn't have a choice. Or else you have all these people who are just released from bondage in limbo. Okay, once that's addressed, when you read the language and you know, the last podcast we talked about this, there there are certain present past or future tenses in the sentence that kind of gives you a clue as to this is.

Jack Moore: Yeah, I agree with that.

Charles: was sup only supposed to happen for a specific instance, not in perpetuity. So the Supremes, as Rush used to call them, the Supremes

Jack Moore: Right.

Charles: Was I surprised? A little bit, but not completely. And the reason is because I pretty much lost all faith in ⁓ in Roberts. And Comey Bryant, she's was her name, not Comey, not Cody Bear. I'm sorry. I call it Comey Bryant. ⁓ she is wavering on things and she's it seems like she's starting to use her emotions instead of logic.

Jack Moore: Yeah. Cody Barrett. Yeah.

Charles: to guide her opinions. That's just my personal opinion. So yeah, I'm not really, really, really shocked when I saw it, I all I could do was shake my head. It's like, ⁓ yeah, we're pretty much screwed now. You know, it's

Jack Moore: You know, I I I did hear though, we keep talking about the potential for the loss of Republican control of clearly the House and maybe the Senate. And there has been this argument, and you know, who knows what's gonna happen in in ⁓ twenty twenty eight. So I did listen to a commentator make an interesting point. He feels like Roberts does what he does because he's trying to avert a court packing. This this was the art. Okay. He's he's the chief. Well, but it made an interesting point. It's like if I play enough games, give enough crumbs to like if he's conservative, which is certainly in question, but the argument is if we go too stringent in what might be considered right wing decisions, when when the Democrats gain control again, which they will, they'll just make the court fifteen.

Charles: That's never heard of that one before.

Jack Moore: And they'll just pack it with six and you know, they'll they'll do whatever it takes to gain control back of the of the Supreme Court in a way that you're giving me a look.

Charles: Well y but I think this is the the problem with conservatives specifically. They tend to give Democrats too much credit because they're thinking, Hey, if we give ⁓ a bone, then they won't do that. They're gonna do it anyway. It doesn't matter how many bones you give ⁓ they're gonna do it anyway.

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm. No, I think I I I think that might be true. And this is pretty historical too. You know, we've mentioned in some other classes, I mean in other classes, in other settings. ⁓ we've had a lot of discussions recently, clearly about Earl Warren. When Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren and he went directly to C ⁓ Supreme Court Chief Justice in 53, I believe that in this, well, I mean, there's supposed to be supposedly a famous quote of Eisenhower: worst mistake I ever made. was putting Earl Warren on the Supreme Court because he didn't know he was going to go the direction he did. And the court went pretty liberal, especially in criminal justice a lot. Now, with the Brown versus Board of Education, I think we could all see that like, yeah, Plessy versus Ferguson was bad law. We could all probably but then more and more, like one of the ones that, and I'm trying to think, he went out in sixty nine, I believe. So he was around for like Miranda versus Arizona. And you know, in that case, Miranda confessed to a rape, if not rape and murder, I believe it was just, I think it was a rape. He confessed to it. The issue was while they read some of the rights, which were later became the Miranda rights, they missed on, you know, you can talk to a lawyer. It was like one aspect of it. But

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: They give him a sheet. It's a checklist. And it's like, you get it, you get it, you get it. Now, having heard all of these rights, do you choose to make a statement? Yep, I'll confess to everything. So his confession gets thrown out. So he's tried again. And when he's tried again, he's convicted again, but without the confession. But I'm just saying there were a lot of people that were like, Man, that Earl Warren court went pretty hard pro, you know, defendants' rights and things like.

Charles: Mm.

Jack Moore: So he didn't seem to be exactly a right winger. Then some of the same things have been said about Sandra Day O'Connor. Reagan puts her on the court. We got a female, she's conservative. Then she didn't play so conservative. You know, she was pretty big in the Planned Parenthood Planned Parenthood versus Casey in 92, coming off of ⁓ she literally said and coming off of Roe versus Wade, well, we got a whole generation of women now. Yeah, I agree that it probably

Charles: Mm.

Jack Moore: wasn't correct rel relative to the jurisdiction and it was writing law and it's probably a state issue. But a bunch of women have already relied on abortion. Can't take it away from them now.

Charles: Mm-hmm. Okay.

Jack Moore: So I'm just saying there's some there's some history of some people that have been in positions that were considered more conservative that have become pretty famous for not being so much. So Amy Coney Barrett or Russ Roberts, either one's probably not anything new.

Charles: So, okay, we've been talking about this over the past several weeks, and I have been asking the question, What exactly is a conservative? So, but I'm gonna ask you this question. Would you think if you had to assign him a political leaning, what would you assign to Thomas?

Jack Moore: Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I think Clarence Thomas is pretty libertarian. I think that's what he is. He wouldn't say so. But I always th right.

Charles: Exactly. Yes, so no, he's not gonna say so. But all you have to do is look at his writings and listen to what he says. It is a case of he's logical about what's there. Conservatives, yes. Conservatives are not. So we look at ⁓ Comey, Coney Barrett, God I keep messing up her names, Roberts Warren.

Jack Moore: Sure. Sure. He's jurisdictional. He's jurisdictional, right. He draws the lines where the lines are drawn, yeah.

Charles: Sandra Day O'Connor, who were all of these people were were they were appointed they were appoint right by Republicans because they were party affiliation, had nothing to do with their philosophy. I don't know why people are even surprised as to what's happening.

Jack Moore: Republicans. And they were Republicans. Right, right, right. No, I don't dis I think that's I think that's right on. And yeah, there there is that, and you've made that point about voting relative to, you know, one's philosophy and and not just party affiliation. And I think you're right. When people are more party affiliated, they don't really care as much about philosophy. Or that would be that yeah. And I think that that's fair and then it becomes their decisions become somewhat political. They are political.

Charles: That's right. Yes. Yeah.

Jack Moore: Because they're looking through the lens of politics, not so much the law. But I will let's go for for the listeners, though let's go back this real quick. Section one, Amendment 14 or the 14th Amendment. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. So, you know, you talk about what tenths all persons born or naturalized in the United States. Could that be read to say?

Charles: Exactly. So sure. Okay.

Jack Moore: Going forward, all persons born or naturalized in the United States.

Charles: Whoa. You know, it's something that just dawned on me, what you just said. How can you say that a person who just got off the plane pregnant and their kid is born here, where do they reside? They don't.

Jack Moore: Okay, all persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.

Charles: Keep keeping. They don't reside anywhere.

Jack Moore: I think that's fair. I mean, yeah, I think that's that's clearly

Charles: So if they don't reside anywhere, wouldn't that kind of you know, answer the question as to them actually being here in the first place legally? No, I shouldn't say legally, permanently. They're not they're not a permanent resident. They're not even a resident alien. They're just somebody who ha came off of a plane. They have no residency established. They're p their their parents don't ha have no res residency established, but remember The slaves did. That's why I keep going back to this was specifically for one instance in history, and that's it.

Jack Moore: Let's look a little bit at what they said. The majority composed of the ones I mentioned determined that birth on U.S. soil plus being subject to U.S. law is enough for citizenship. Several dissenters, including Thomas and Alito, say birth alone is not enough. The children's parents must have a deeper political allegiance or relationship to the United States. Jackson's direct disagreement. ⁓ with Thomas's dissent highlights a major rift between the legal minds. Here's what each of them said. Much of Robert's start with Robert's opinion was a history lesson on English common law, in which he concluded that birthright citizenship has always depended primarily on birthplace, not on the parents' immigration status or domicile. He said citizenship then and now was the right to have rights to freely participate in our political community. The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to every free-born person in this land. Justice Roberts wrote for the court, citing congressional debate over the amendment. We keep that promise today. We break no new ground, Roberts said on the bench as he read the court's majority opinion. Now here's Thomas. Thomas, who wrote the main dissent, disagreed with the majority's opinion and argued that American-born children are not automatically American citizens. The basis of his argument, among others, is that the court ignored evidence from Reconstruction debates that suggested citizenship depended on a deeper relationship to the country. After the American Civil War, the United States underwent a series of political and constitutional battles over how to define the civil rights and citizenship status of the formerly enslaved black Americans. The Citizenship Clause was enacted for people who were born in this country. And called it home. It was enacted for freed slaves such as Dred Scott, who had a domicile here and therefore was entitled to sue as a citizen. Thomas wrote in his dissent, concluding that Reconstruction was a targeted remedy. This is where you're going. This is exactly this is what Thomas is saying was a targeted remedy for freed slaves to restore citizenship to a wrongfully excluded group. In my view, The citizenship order is not facially unconstitutional, Thomas wrote, referring to Trump's executive order. The order is consistent with the original meaning of the citizenship clause, at least insofar as it applies to children born to parents here lawfully or unlawfully who are not domiciled in the United States. Let's go to Jackson real quick and then the Katanji Brown Jackson. Sh Jackson agreed with huh? All right, you get ready.

Charles: Okay. Ooh. Okay, hold on. Let me hold on let me let me get myself together 'cause I know what she's gonna say is she's gonna make bananas.

Jack Moore: Jackson agreed with the opinion in full but wrote to respond to Thomas' dissent. So she wrote in response to the dissent, arguing that Thomas's fundamental misunderstanding of what the Reconstruction Amendments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th, are trying to accomplish. Despite his longstanding endorsement of a colorblind constitution, Justice Thomas now surprisingly suggests that the citizenship clause was a race-conscious remedy. remedial measure, I'm sorry, relating only to freed slaves such as Dred Scott. Well, historically to not think the Fourteenth Amendment had something to do with the am end of the American Civil War.

Charles: Is crazy, man.

Jack Moore: But that narrow vision of the fourteenth Amendment bears little relationship to the history of its ratification. The Reconstruction amendments were an anti caste, anti subordination reset for the nation, not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery. The court's conception of colorblind constitution and the government in principle descents cramped, group specific readings of the citizenship clause were Are two sides of the same coin, stemming from a basic misunderstanding of the relevant history. Now, I will say this, I think if you're logical here, and not not to disparage her take on it, I mean, so specifically, but well, yeah, but I think that a fair reading is minus the American Civil War, everything that had led up to that time post 1865.

Charles: I will.

Jack Moore: I seriously doubt the Fourteenth Amendment comes up for ratification. And I clearly don't believe the 1866 civil rights legislation would have been there other than to, okay, we had a Dred Scott decision. We had a decision related to the status of a black person in the United States and what rights they had and whether they were citizens. So now we have a war, we have an end of the war. And at that time it's like, okay. Now we have these people who are in effect freed in December of 1865 by the fourth by the third, I'm sorry, the 13th Amendment. There has been an abolishment of slavery, involuntary servitude. Okay, now we have these people who are free. But what does that mean? Well, I say free, they're clearly not able to legally be in bondage anymore. So now it's like, all right, that's all well and good. But what good is that to them? As as it relates to what their status is in the United States. Well, we got to address the citizenship thing. So I do think that narrowly, yeah, all they were addressing was citizenship as it related to people who had just been freed. Now, with no, and so I think that her flipping it back on Thomas, like, ⁓ you're Mr. Colorblind. Now all of a sudden you're race conscious. Well.

Charles: Yeah. It to me is common sense, but okay.

Jack Moore: I don't even know that that necess I don't know that. Okay, you've heard these stories. I remember I was at the studio with our friend one time, and there was a gentleman on. I think he didn't come to the studio, he called in. And you may remember this dust up. It was about 30 years ago, maybe 25 years ago. He was a PhD in history and a black gentleman who did a bunch of snooping around and found can Black Confederates, right? And a couple of them owned slaves. And he got shut down. Can't publish that. No, you can't say that. And he was like, and so, so our friend was kind of like, What got you start? He goes, I don't know. I kind of heard some rumors, you know. And so I start doing some history and I start looking around and I start to find that there were blacks that identified as Confederates and they, you know, whatever that means, right? So it could be argued.

Charles: Yes. I remember that, man. ⁓ yeah. Yeah.

Jack Moore: And and I don't know the slave status of any human being not black during that time. But what if there were? I don't know. I mean, maybe there's some still some indentured servitude. I'm not sure that this may not have addressed more relative to people that have been freed. Now, clearly, in Dred Scott, Tawney is just addressing the black race, those that have come from Africa. I mean, that's what he's addressing, or from any other place ⁓ where they were enslaved. So I don't know that this was any kind of universal in hey, anybody that's been in bondage, we are we're we're taken out with the 13th Amendment involuntary servitude. Then it says, unless people are properly punished and you know they're being held incarcerated and punished or something like that. But other than that, you cannot hold someone else in bondage. Okay. Does that just apply to people who had been enslaved? Is it really?

Charles: No, it doesn't. Because the reason that it doesn't is because just because you were a freed slave prior to let's just say you were free slave prior to you you purchased your freedom that still didn't make you a citizen.

Jack Moore: Yeah, I don't know. I mean it's mm hmm. Right. Well, I think that was the Dred Scott decision because Dred Scott had been freed. Yeah, he had been freed, but he still my my memory on this, and I and I could be wrong and somebody in the comments will definitely say it, but my rem my memory of it was kind of a test case. It was to try to address this issue. That I think through the passage of one ownership to or one owner to another, he had been given his freedom, but he sued on the I passed into free territory.

Charles: So you Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: So once I passed into free territory, I am in fact free. And and Tawney went the extra mile to go, now not even listen to this because you don't have the status that I have to recognize as a litigant, basically. Go ahead.

Charles: Right. Right. Right. W I gotta a a ask you this question from as a lawyer, this English common law thing that I keep hearing about, I I kinda I don't quite understand why it keeps getting brought up. And and the reason I ask that, because Rob was brought it up.

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm. Yes. Mm-hmm.

Charles: So I made this little note so I wouldn't forget. I said English common law also had a caste system embedded in it. Should we have that one should we have a caste system here then? So I don't really care what England English common law has to say about this stuff. That is the reason that ⁓ what's three more days, yeah. That is the reason that we had a declaration of independence because of the laws English common law that was in England. I don't care what they have to say about this. Why are we referring to a system that we broke away from in the first place? I don't get it.

Jack Moore: Well, I I think the argument is what was the idea of citizenship com what what was the basis of it? And I remember you you mentioned ⁓ in seventeen eighty nine in the first Congress, they're passing stuff left and right. They're they're they're structuring things. You know, the you have the seventeen eighty seven ⁓ constitution, which is going through ratification in the several states. Matter of fact, when Washington runs, two of the states haven't yet ratified. So only in 11 of the new states even voted sent electors. So it's still not fully complete the whole structure. But there is this idea. I think you had referenced ⁓ one of the ⁓ first congressional acts was sort of defining citizenship. Right. ⁓ and so I would say if they if they got into any kind of definition of citizenship.

Charles: Yes. Yeah.

Jack Moore: It really is over and above any type of historical view of what a citizen is based upon England. I mean, I think it kind of nicks to that. Because that's one of the things that had that's why all the states either ripped up their constitutions or created constitutions, because they'd all been subject to the king. So, like you could have been appointed sheriff within a particular area by the king. Well, that that goes out. I mean, you may be re-elected in the new state, but all the states have to do

Charles: Yeah. Mm-hmm. Right.

Jack Moore: their own ratification of their own constitutions to address we're no longer subject to England.

Charles: Well then ⁓ that's why I asked the question, why do they keep bringing up this English common law?

Jack Moore: Well, I think it fits their narrative, probably. I mean, just short answer. I think it's like if it fits that the this idea of the English common law was you were born in an area subject to the king. Like you're born on his grounds, you're subject to the king. You owe an allegiance to the king. And that doesn't really make that doesn't make you so much a citizen, you're a subject of.

Charles: Yeah. I mean that's that's No, I I I agree with you. It I but why can I ⁓ trust me I would never do this, but why could I couldn't I then say, well, in s Soviet Russia's constitution, blah blah blah blah blah. It has no bearing here. So why even bring it up? That's what I don't get. It's it's almost like in for me as a a layman, a joke public. When you're talking about English common law, it's kinda going in one ear and out of the other because I'm asking, but what does our law say? I don't really care what English common law says. That's why we broke away from England because we didn't like their common law, obviously. Why keep bringing it up? So r but that's neither here nor there. Really, I don't I don't really get why this was so difficult in in in our last podcast we talked about all the Hem and Hawan about the the Second Amendment and so on and so forth as to what does it mean if this comma was here and so on so forth. But the guys who wrote pretty much authored the thirteenth to fourteenth amendment, you can go back and read exactly what that meant because they were interviewed on this stuff before and after, and they said, ⁓ no, no, no. It does not apply to foreigners. Why is that so difficult for people?

Jack Moore: I real quick, I think I got an answer here. So I was confused a little bit on it. So apparently Scott was suing. He was Dred Scott. You know he was born too, by the way.

Charles: ⁓ South Emma County. Yeah. Yeah.

Jack Moore: You got it. Yeah, he was born in Virginia. Yeah. So apparently he spent four years in a state where it was illegal and he sued under, hey, I I went into free territory, but he was not freed yet. So when he loses the decision, ⁓ and Tawney says that ⁓ we do not the court does not have to recognize in the condition or being a black person, being of African descent. I don't even have to listen to this. You don't, you don't have standing in the court. Then Scott was deeded to another person, a congressman, Taylor Blow, who then freed him. So he d he was freed after the decision. He sued for his freedom lost, and in large part, you don't have the standing to sue anyway. Then when he was purchased by or deeded to. This Republican congressman, he freed him on May 26, 1857. He died shortly thereafter of tuberculosis. So he didn't live long after that. But he he w I I thought he'd been freed, and it was more of a test case. It was like he'd already been freed. I knew that someone literally someone along the line had freed him, but apparently the freedom came just after the decision. So in the time he sued, he was in fact still enslaved. All right. So, ⁓ Yeah, we we've we've kind of covered ⁓ what ⁓ what these different justices said and I'm hearing what you're saying and some of this was discussed long before this thing came out. This is what it's gonna be about, the subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and what does it mean, you know, the the getting into the whole common law view. All these were gonna be the issues. And I think they just still did what they wanted to. And I will say this too, and then I I want you to go, but this is something I used to talk to my classes about. I used to say, what does the five four decision strongly imply? And they'd look at me and they'd look at me like, what are you talking? What do you got? What do you got, coach? What do you got after? And I'm like, it's coin flip. I mean, if it was clear, right, be a nine-o, right? I mean, what you would think, like if they all went to the same legal books and they all did the same research, ⁓ yeah, yeah, I've found the answer. If it's five four, so this is a decision made. If Coney Barrett, Roberts, both one or both. If it goes if they go the other way, then it's five, four, six, three the other direction. It doesn't make them any more right.

Charles: True, but it has such implications. It's yeah.

Jack Moore: ⁓ no, no. I'm not saying it doesn't have implications, but I'm saying all this is a political will. That's all it really ever is. It's yeah.

Charles: Yeah, it f for sure. It is definitely political will. The problem with it is, as I stated earlier, and when you are nominating people solely based on party affiliation and not philosophy, this is which this is what happens. It just is. But

Jack Moore: Yeah, but I I I don't disagree go go ahead.

Charles: Whoop there's there's another thing about this. This now puts it back into the court of the people who can actually handle this. Which is Congress. Because really, if you think about it, this case was based on did Trump have the authority to issue an executive order for something like this? This is why I was brought up in the first place. Really, what they they ruled on was he did not. That's r really what it is. He did not have the authority to rule on it. Because, say for instance, the the Supreme Court has said, yes, we

Jack Moore: That's correct.

Charles: We think he did have the authority to do to do that. You still have the question on whether or not birthright citizenship is legal or not. You still have the same question. So they themselves have said, Congress, we're kicking this back to you so you can go ahead and pass a law if you want to, on this issue, or come up with a constitutional amendment or or an act because there was an act that that somebody ha one of the justices had referenced. when it comes to this, pass an act of something clarifying exactly what the language is. The problem with it is you think they're gonna do it. No, they're not.

Jack Moore: I I'm gonna I'm gonna go out just for clarification's sake. All right. I didn't read it that they didn't think that Trump you may be right on that. It wasn't a question because I don't think they would have addressed the whole issue of birthright citizenship if Trump made an executive order and he just clearly didn't have the authority to make an order in that field. I think they just would have said they would have kicked it or just gone what they just would have said, hey, he doesn't have the authority, therefore we rule against his order. And then in effect it just stays the way it is. But they went to the step they went the step of saying, this is what we think this fourteenth amendment means.

Charles: No, that's I think they were forced to do that, but that's not what that's not what was in front of them. That what was in front of them was did Trump have the authority to make the to sign or issue the executive order in the first place? That's what they

Jack Moore: Well, aga okay aga again though, Tru Charles, I think that if he makes an order that they feel like is in violation of the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment as it relates to born on American soil and subject to the jurisdiction, it might feel like they're saying he didn't have the authority. I think what they're saying was it's null and void because it goes against the very language of the Fourteenth Amendment. I think that's what they're saying Yeah, I think

Charles: I I understand w I understand where you're coming from with that. I I understand. But

Jack Moore: Yeah, that's what they're saying. If he says an executive order somewhere he clearly has authority and it doesn't ha it doesn't fly in the face of or is in opposition to the language, they'd let it go.

Charles: I think they but just my personal opinion here, I think they were forced into addressing the birthright citizenship thing because Trump made it that. I think they didn't have a choice.

Jack Moore: Yeah. Well I don't yeah, I don't d I don't disagree.

Charles: But this would have never made it to the Supreme Court had he not issued the executive order doing something. And I'm being honest with you, Rand, if that's put in front of me and I am on that court, I'm ruling against it. Because he does not have the authority to do that. Now, if you want to a ask me the question as to is birthright citizenship legal, I was no, it's not. It's not. But that's what was put in front of them.

Jack Moore: ⁓ okay, so you're okay, you're saying under the Article Two powers of the of of the executive, you're saying that him coming out and defining what a person born in this country of parents here not legally, he didn't have that authority. Okay.

Charles: Correct. 'Cause that's what was brought in front of them.

Jack Moore: Okay. That's an interesting point. But you're saying they were like, Well, hey, let's put some ice on the cake too. Let us go ahead and speak to it. Right. Right. Got it. Got it. I see what you're saying. Yeah.

Charles: Yes. Because he was the one that brought that up. He w he steered that path. He steered the ship, so they say, in that path. And they didn't have a choice but to talk about because he kept bringing it up. ⁓ yeah, but it's birthright citizenship. Blah, blah, blah, blah. But the th the question is, did you have the authority to make an executive order? You did not. Congress, as they s pretty much said, they kicked it back to Congress. Congress, you can write a law. Do it. Bread.

Jack Moore: But now haven't they set the precedent with this decision by putting the verbiage they've put in that if Congress goes and passes, let's just say ain't gonna happen, but let's say that they've got it, they've got the votes, which I don't see, not in the way, but if they had the votes to get through the House and Senate and they put it back on Trump's desk and he signs that bill saying exactly what he said, or they're not gonna turn around the next time and then the first person that challenges it, like, hey, you've already decided this. In a five four decision, you've already decided what the language means. I think that's ⁓

Charles: Pretty much. Kinda kinda shot himself in the foot. I you know, I give him as much as I hate to say this, I give him credit for trying to get to the point where the question had to be answered. I definitely give him that.

Jack Moore: Yeah, but I mean I I guess mm hmm. Well, and he probably thought he had the co well, first of all, his days are limited. You know, we're getting down to what are we looking at? ⁓ twenty-four, thirty months, got thirty more months in office, something like that. And in and the court's not gonna get better, right? I mean, he would have thought that you know, if I'm gonna get this through and make it work, I got the court. I got the court I dreamed of. I got the court where I put three people up, you know, and right. Yeah. And so you would have thought Gorsage is the other, right? So

Charles: Yes. No. Right. Course, thank you, yes. Yeah.

Jack Moore: Yeah, so that would have been the other. ⁓ so yeah, it was Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett that he has since he's been president. Now, there's been talk what Alito might be the next retire or Thomas. I guess Thomas or Alito either one. I know Thomas is up in age.

Charles: Sure. Man, ca can we go ahead and get this AI robot thing online and somebody clone Thomas, please? So man. ⁓ my goodness gracious, man. I w I would I would have never I don't think anybody would have ever been able to guess that he would have been as consistently logical as he has been, without running off at the mouth.

Jack Moore: Yeah. Interesting life.

Charles: 'Cause he didn't really s you know, he doesn't say it i too much. He really doesn't.

Jack Moore: No, he really does. No, I always kind of thought he and Scalia ran tight. You know, they were a lot of the same guy. They're they're they're both very objective thinkers, which again kind of, you know, like we said earlier, if I had to put a political label on ⁓ that's kind of how I that's kind of how I thought I heard libertarians. I don't know anymore. Because, you know, by the very nature, and you know, Dave Smith has talked about this a lot, you know, and a lot of other people that

Charles: Yes. Yeah. But Yeah, right.

Jack Moore: I think a lot of people that lean libertarian in podcasting or just in general in talking philosophy. If you are somewhat libertarian in your view, if you want to call it that, classical liberal maybe is really what it is. But if you're you're not a group person, you're not going to be a team person. You're already for the individual. So you're not one you're not wanting to play the politics of politics. You you tend to want hard and fast rules.

Charles: Right. Right.

Jack Moore: That everybody recognized where the lines are drawn, but nobody else does. So everybody else is running to the trough trying to get their share. And you're sitting back, you know, that's why you kind of end up looking pie in the sky. Like, well, if everybody else thought that, that might work. But buddy, they don't. So you do live in a welfare state. You do, you know, you do live in this situation where tax and spend, government, bread and circuses, this is what you get. And

Charles: They don't. Hagar. Yep. Yep. 'Cause we keep voting for party people instead of philosophy people.

Jack Moore: Y well, yeah, because I think most people are party people.

Charles: Yeah, 'cause you said it earlier, just a minute ago, that they kind of sorta just want to belong to the group. And a lot of people are afraid Yes, they w Yes. Right. In instead of identifying as an individual, they want to identify as a group.

Jack Moore: Yeah. They wanna identify. I think they want I think they they wanna identify. Yeah. Sure.

Charles: Okay. Yeah, but that isn't that means you have less and less ability to make your own decisions. Because you're you're gonna be so concerned about what the group is gonna think of you, you know, when it comes to the the decision that you made. Make a decision based on what's best for you. And then so long as that decision doesn't hurt or harm anybody else, I think you should be fine. But most people are like, ⁓ I'm just gonna go along to get along. And this is what we have. Yeah. Yeah.

Jack Moore: Yeah, I Yeah, I just I see it in a lot of things. I I mean I saw it in ⁓ I don't know. I don't want to dump on certain types of organizations, but you know, it's always kinda like the thing in college where people really they wanted to be part of a fraternity or sorority or whatever and you know, it's like and they made you do what in the hazing? ⁓ they made me jump out of a building naked, you know, with ⁓ you know, with ⁓ peanut butter and jelly up, you know.

Charles: Right. Right.

Jack Moore: You know, like and you and you're okay with that? ⁓ yeah, it was just part of the initiation. And but those kind of initiation and being embarrassed and hazed or whatever, so that you could be a part of something. And I tell you what, I had a friend whose daughter went to a school where it's supposed to be the nastiest, not nastiest sororities necessarily, but anyway, her her daughter had gone and she's running around trying to do the whole what pledging or whatever, you know.

Charles: Yeah. Rushing.

Jack Moore: And these are mean girls rushing, right? But these are mean in but girls were, according to this young lady I know who had a daughter just started college, were really, really mean in the rejection process, right? And these girls were like having to get mental health care over whether they got into these. ⁓ yeah. Well, because they they were in fact going to the school because maybe some people make out the school, but it was a school.

Charles: Yeah. Yes. ⁓ that's crazy.

Jack Moore: That had the reputation of having the best sorority, you know, like the the prettiest girls and all that. So, you know, when you get there, you you don't want to be relegated to the bottom tier. You know, you want to be in the top. And then getting the rejection, you know, this is all pre-like freshman orientation. Like they're they're knocking this stuff out before some of them are quitting and going home over it. And then I actually saw a podcast right after that about is this healthy?

Charles: Okay.

Jack Moore: I'm using that example, but you know, certainly people, you were in the military. There's certain people that want to be part of elite things and you know, like you want to be a part of elite force and all that kind of thing. You want to belong to something, and you certainly know the hazing in that can be pretty can be pretty rough as well. Because it you want to separate. I do get that. I do get that part. ⁓ you know, we've talked about it in sports too. You know, because I was a baseball guy.

Charles: Yeah. Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: There is the individual aspect of it. There's some teams that are far more you know, and I've made this point about why people are good in some sports. And there's actually a study a friend of mine did where it shows it was w it was a kid that that tested a certain way when I was at this camp. And he goes, You need to be playing tennis. It's like, I'm sorry, what he goes, you're not a you're not a team guy. Like you, it's okay. You can get what you can kind of get by his pitching, but you know, it's like I've told people, I'm like,

Charles: Okay.

Jack Moore: You and I are on the baseball field and the ground balls hit to me and I make an error. How many people know it?

Charles: Hm. A lot. Yeah, a lot.

Jack Moore: Everybody. Right. Right. If I strike out with the bases loaded to end the game, I go home with the bat in my hand. Everybody knows it. You and I are playing football. You're playing safety. I'm playing corner. The guy puts a route on me and you know he fakes me out of my shoes. And then you sense it and you go over and intercept the pass. Nobody knows. The fact that I the guy I blew coverage in the guy, I fell down and the guy beat me in the coverage, and then you came across and made an interception. We're both in the same defensive backfield.

Charles: Mm-hmm. Right.

Jack Moore: Maybe some fans like, hey, Jack just got faked out of his shoes and fell down, but Charles came across. So you know what I'm saying? You can't cover up for the guy. So that comes into personalities. When you play football, I do think that there's a lot more team bonding because you are so reliant on each other. Whereas it's not in certain sports. I mean, the sports vary and stuff like that. And in organizations are going to vary, but in politics, I do think that people tend

Charles: Yeah, I get it. All right.

Jack Moore: To just want to be a part of the party, whatever the party is. And the people you see defect, it was we talked about in the recent show. Why did they defect? And they're no longer what I thought they were. Something's changed. The mess has changed. I'm out, right? All right. So all that being said, I think Justice Thomas is right there with you, brother. I th I think that I think what he said is what you said months ago. Exactly what you said. So you're in good company there.

Charles: Yes. No. Something. Yep. Yeah. Well, you know, I put in my application for the Supreme Court. I haven't heard back from them yet, so you know, I'm waiting for a position to come open. You never know. We'll see. Yeah, we'll see.

Jack Moore: And Justice Thomas, I'm not mistaken, he he is ⁓ he was born in Georgia, correct? I know he went to Yale law school.

Charles: I I think it was Alabama. But I could be mistaken. I don't know. I don't know.

Jack Moore: I think he was Georgia. ⁓ you say your goodbyes while I check that to make sure, but I'm pretty sure he was Georgia, but go ahead.

Charles: Okay. Well I don't think this is gonna end. ⁓ I think it's just gonna it's gonna continue coming up just like the Second Amendment thing just can continue continues coming up. And the reason being is is that we have so many issues within the country that immigration is a cause of it. Whether it be our exploding budget, ⁓ crumbling infrastructure, when it health inf infrastructure, I could go on and on and on.

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Charles: And that was one of the reasons that the birthright citizenship kept coming up because we're spending money on people who are technically my personal opinion, maybe not the Supreme Court's opinion, not supposed to be here and that's actually taken away from being able to help the people who are here legally.

Jack Moore: That is that is definitely an argument. So on Thomas. Thomas is now seventy-eight years of all of age, born 23 June. He just had a birthday. He turned 78. Pinpoint, Georgia. And where the hell is Pinpoint? It's probably somewhere you've been through, right? Because it's actually man, it's really an interesting location here. It is right on the tip of South Carolina. It is the, you know, as Georgia goes up.

Charles: Yeah. Okay. ⁓ okay. Alright. Got it wrong. ⁓ maybe I've never heard of it. Hmm. Yes.

Jack Moore: you know, from the co it's right on the coast. It's at the northernmost portion of the coast of Georgia on the Atlantic. So South Carolina's tip is right there. It's like it's it looks like minutes away from from South Carolina.

Charles: ⁓ wow. So ⁓ Yeah, it's between like Hilton Head and Savannah. Okay. Alright. Okay.

Jack Moore: should be based upon this, but yeah, that's where he's from. He's from right there on the water. All right. Love you, brother. Appreciate you having you on. I think it was ⁓ it was an interesting discussion today. We'll get into some other discussions as well. Please like, subscribe, make comments. Charles reads the comments. ⁓ and we'll come back. Your your closing thoughts.

Charles: Okay. Alright man. Over to you, Ron. Yes. Hm sometimes. par I'm sorry, philosophy over party. Yeah. Yeah.

Jack Moore: You're on that theme. I like that. You yeah. Yeah. I I think I think you're making some noise on that, brother. Take care, man. Bye bye.

Charles: Yeah. We'll see. Hopefully people are listening. Alright, you too, bro. Bye.