Let us modify the 14th:
All persons born to two American citizens, native born or two persons naturalized in the United States according to law are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Persons born to one American citizen are citizens of the United States if they have been continuously resident within the United States for at least ten years prior to their eighteenth birthday and take an oath affirming their loyalty and renouncing all foreign ties. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, nor shall any State provide any aid whatsoever to non-citizens. Violation of a oath made in any capacity shall result in permanent disenfranchisement and is not subject to the pardon power.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective number of adult citizens. No legislative district shall be valid if it is drawn for the purposes of securing a partisan political victory nor shall any district be based upon race, ethnic, gender or religious grounds. If any district is challenged on grounds of validity, seven adult citizens of that district shall be randomly chosen via lottery to gather and rule on the validity of the district. A majority is required for ruling on the district validity. The House of Representatives shall be required to expel members from invalid legislative districts; any Representative or Senator who disagrees with said expulsion shall also be expelled. Any person expelled from Congress is by that act permanently disenfranchised and may never hold any office of profit or trust in the United States or the several States.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in actions which violated that oath.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred due to fraudulent activity; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Make your own additions or subtractions as you like: but it is clear that if we are to be a serious nation with a future, we’re going to have to start spelling things out. We can’t rely on honesty and good will – too many of our fellow citizens are idiots and crooks. We can’t leave things open to interpretation because the liars will simply interpret them to support lies.
I saw a picture of that Islamist massacre of Christians in Nigeria over Palm Sunday and it is going to stick with me forever – quite horrific. Don’t search for such pictures. This poor kid had his face sliced in half.
But we do need to think about it – these savages hacked the Christians to pieces. Think about the physical effort and time that takes. The perpetrators would have been covered in gore after they were done. Yes, they are still humans and thus endowed with the rights of same – but they are also unreasonable, inhuman savages. We can’t negotiate with such people – they don’t have grievances which we can ameliorate…they have a vision of themselves as eternal brute masters over slaves. There is no half way point between what they want and what any decent person deserves.
In Iran, this is what we’re fighting – the same sort of people. Yes, they are in error. Yes, they are capable of repentance. Yes, if they do repent then they can be welcomed with open arms into the community of people. But first they must be stopped – and that will require violence. You can’t disabuse people of such deep seated evil by careful reasoning…if they were open to careful reasoning, they never would have got to the point where they chop people up. I hope that Trump arms the Christians and provides them support via our Navy and Air Force.
Apparently for Season 3 of Rings of Power, one of the heroes is an orc. It is like they are deliberately going out of their way to be insulting.
Orcs were creatures of Morgoth in Tolkien’s universe. It is never made clear whether they were something made out of whole cloth by Morgoth or captive elves which he ruined. Suffice it to say, the orcs were made in mockery of elves. Entirely evil and entirely enslaved to Morgoth and, later, to Morgoth’s emissary, Sauron. Clever enough to make weapons and do other basic things, they were usually lazy, greedy and cowardly. Unless they had a Dark Lord to impose his will, they wandered in small bands, killing and stealing what they could. Orcs aren’t born – they are spawned. This does imply some sort of female of the species, but orcs are incapable of love or devotion. So, no, an orc can’t be friends with an elf, even as some sort of temporary alliance. That the writers of Rings of Power are doing this means they want to change the entire meaning of Tolkien’s work – and IMO, this was started with the first series for the Lord of the Rings. There were two major parts totally excluded from the movies: Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire. Part of this was time constraints but I believe that most of it was because the people who made the movie failed to understand why Bombadil was in it and why the Shire had to be scoured. Most important, though, was the excising of the Scouring.
Tolkien, himself, said it was an integral part of the story and envisioned from the start. That is, the hobbits after their arduous adventures, would have to return home and set the Shire to rights. Clean out the bad elements – a sort of low-key version of what Aragorn was doing in Gondor. That is, in any people, bad elements slip in and start to erode the good things and if they aren’t called out and expelled from time to time, it just gets worse. The hobbits had grown lazy and overly tolerant…they just wanted to be left alone and thought it was their right to be left alone. But all the while, enemies were gathering…enemies which could have been easily kept out by a bit of vigilance, but laziness allowed them in, causing death and destruction. By not having it in the movies, we are left with the sense that nothing was ever wrong with the hobbits. Nothing needed to be cured, nobody needed to stand guard. It left a hole in the tale…and that hole is now being driven through by people who not only don’t understand Tolkien’s world, but hate it.
It is my hope that eventually the slop they’re doing now will eventually be forgotten and in later years, truer adaptations will be made.
Blogs For Victory 
Overall, pretty good, but also kind of an omnibus amendment, covering too many different areas, The first part, about citizenship, is good, though it does not address naturalized citizenship or rescinding of citizenship for naturalized citizens under certain conditions. Violation of a oath made in any capacity shall result in permanent disenfranchisement and is not subject to the pardon power means loss of ability to vote (disenfranchisement) which seems to address the issue of non-citizens voting but is linked to violation of oaths, which I think makes it confusing. I’d leave that to an amendment on voting which is also where I would put the part about only counting citizens.
This would call for one amended amendment and one new one
Hey, let’s rewrite it again! I’m totally open to ideas.
It’s a great start but the most pressing problem would be to get Congress to OK an amendment process.
The Convention of States effort is still plugging along. I think they have around 20 states (out of the 34 needed) to call a Convention of States for the purpose of amending the Constitution.
I haven’t kept up with the Convention of States but I remember that there is supposed to be a mechanism in the design to prevent additional amendments from being added, protecting it from sabotage or becoming a runaway convention. It seems that this might be a good time to start promoting this again.
I listened to some of the oral arguments about birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court today and read some of the after action reports…consensus is that the Court will rule 6-3 for children of illegals being citizens…but I’m not so sure. I mean, I know that Roberts and ACB want to rule that way…but I’m a little hopeful that they realize such a ruling would mean the eventual end of judicial review…which is a mere courtesy extended to the Judiciary by the Legislative and Executive since Marbury. It isn’t actually in the Constitution that the Court rules on the Constitutional validity of laws. It is the appellate court of last resort…but there is no mechanism for enforcing any judicial ruling save by consent from the Executive.
As one wag put it, we clearly fought the Civil War so that Chinese billionaires can create a score of anchor babies via surrogate pregnancy. That does show how absolutely absurd the idea that just being born in the USA makes you a citizen. No other nation on Earth has this absurd idea – that someone illegally in country can give birth to a citizen, or pay a citizen to carry a child to term who will also be a citizen. There is no way we survive as a nation under a regime which continues to allow such suicidal idiocy to have the force of law – and I don’t think the American people will long tolerate it.
And this, by the way, is the true measure of Trump – this wasn’t even on the radar ten years ago. He has forced us to confront this. Sure, the Ruling Class will fight tooth and nail to keep their cheap labor, domestic serfs and captive voters…but the American people can now see it.
And we do have guns. Unlike the Europeans.
If we have a Supreme Court which can’t even understand the concept of being under the jurisdiction of a country then we are lost anyway. It’s not complicated.
Say Alberto is here legally, went through the process, has permanent legal residency. But he’s still not a citizen. He goes on vacation and gets into a legal bind—maybe a traffic accident in another country. Does he appeal to the United States Embassy for help? No—BECAUSE HE’S NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND THEREFORE NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. He appeals to the embassy of the nation where he is still a citizen, the country which still has jurisdiction over him until he renounces that citizenship.
(I had a foreign friend, here for 12 years and a legal permanent resident, who died. Immediately the consulate of his own country stepped in, dealing with the mortuary and all arrangements including sorting out and shipping his personal property and arranging paperwork for the legal sale of his car. Why? Because he was still under the jurisdiction of that country.)
And Alberto’s children are not citizens, either, unless their mother is. When and if we pull out heads out and clean this mess up, those kids would have some legal status and maybe even a shortcut to citizenship when they turn 18 or 21 and APPLY FOR IT, because at least Daddy was legal when they were born.
We pay more attention to titling motor vehicles than we do citizenship. Not just titling, but things like certification. If I falsely certify the mileage on a car I sell I have committed a crime, but if I falsely certify the alleged vote count in an election for the president of the United States, knowing it is inaccurate, no one cares.
An argument I had on X about this is illustrative:
Person A: It is simply ridiculous to think that birthright citizenship is secured via the 14th.
Person B: You won’t like it if we don’t have Rule of Law!
Person C: You mean like when the overwhelming majority of people in CA enacted a law banning benefits for illegals but then one judge – just one! – voided that law, that was Rule of Law?
Person B: Hey, I didn’t like that either…but we need Rule of Law!
Me: The point is we don’t have law. Haven’t had it for ages. “Shall not be infringed” is infringed 10,000 times a day but now the SC is set to rule that an Amendment narrowly defined to ensure citizenship for freedmen now means that a woman in contractions in Tijuana can cross the border and give birth to a citizen in San Diego. This isn’t law. It bears no relation to law. Anyone who thinks it is law has no idea what a law even is.
Our country was founded on the principle that the government only has the power to do what is given by consent of the governed. Nobody in America ever consented to having the children of illegals be citizens. It was never debated in Congress, never proposed by the Executive. It was simply done via administrative and judicial fiat. There is no law on the books which regulates the child of an illegal being recognized as a citizen. Sure, we should have stomped on it right at the start, but initially it was few in numbers…but now it is untold millions, with even greater numbers in the future if we don’t get this right. Our entire political process can be subjected to the will of foreign powers working through “citizens” who are actually loyal to a foreign power.
And here’s what the “Rule of Law” people don’t get…when you call Judicial and Executive anarchy “law” then the people will reject it. They won’t respect it. They will seek their own means to get around what is being called “law”…and the eventual work-around is violence leading to a tyrant who will at least secure the birth right of actual citizens.
Me: The point is we don’t have law. Haven’t had it for ages. “Shall not be infringed” is infringed 10,000 times a day but now the SC is set to rule that an Amendment narrowly defined to ensure citizenship for freedmen now means that a woman in contractions in Tijuana can cross the border and give birth to a citizen in San Diego. This isn’t law. It bears no relation to law. Anyone who thinks it is law has no idea what a law even is.
You should be making oral arguments on behalf of the administration. Solicitor General Noonan – has a nice ring to it.
LOL – but it does touch upon something I’ve thought we should do…back to my old idea of a Citizen’s Review Board; it should be regular folks presenting their case. You think I’m violating your rights? Ok; lets you and I go argue it out before a jury and let them decide. Not in criminal matters – that still takes lawyers – but if I were to, say, not bake the cake then we show up in a courtroom with a judge as mere referee and you state your case, I state mine and the jury decides. One party doesn’t like the decision? They can appeal…and we’d set up higher courts to hear and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.
“He wouldn’t bake my cake. Why not?”
“I didn’t want to.”
Jury: no violation of anyone’s rights, case dismissed.
The premise being that no one’s rights include forcing another private individual to do something that they don’t want to do. The reason doesn’t really matter. It’s really not complicated.
I would most certainly be in favor of a Constitutional Amendment that makes the oath of office binding and provides severe punishment for any public official who willfully violates it. That one move would go a long way toward restoring our Constitutional government to what the Founders envisioned. The Founders were honorable men, and I sincerely believe that they thought that most people who sought to serve their country through public service would also be honorable. Naive? Maybe – probably. But that naivete is fixable.
As far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, it’s original meaning has been subverted for so long, most people, even many who pay close attention to politics, think that it says something it doesn’t. Trump is the first President to come along and question it. I hope the Supreme Court finally grows a pair, even if it means that the problem has to be solved by amending the 14th.
So I just watched Bill Hemmer on Fox interview Ayed Al Saad, or whatever his name is, the Islamist running for office in MI I believe … I find it really hard to believe he has any support. WHEN will we learn????
Muslims are insidious liars and cockroaches. Never let them have any power.
When will we learn ????
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1284794686812343/?fs=e&fs=e
If human nature is the measure, then we won’t learn until it’s too late. I hope I’m gone by then.
I think you’re right. In fact we also have this battle to fight …. Forcing Democrats to stop allowing their constituents to prey on innocent Americans
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/04/blood-her-hands-florida-moves-impeach-radical-judge/
This is a key need – punishing those who make the real problem.
Quite frankly, given how Leftists portray Conservatives as violent gun nuts, I’m amazed there haven’t been a number of activist judges assassinated, especially those who have released criminals who have then murdered someone. I guess we’re not as dangerous as the Left would have people believe.
The list of things believed by the Left is quite long and seems to be growing. In a comments section on the NextDoor local social media site I recently learned that President Trump had been named as a “person of interest” by the FBI in its Epstein investigation and is a convicted pedophile, and he and his family have grifted millions during his terms as president. (The success they have had in keeping this from public knowledge is quite impressive.)
One of the funniest things the Left seems to “know” is that if enough people dress up in silly costumes and stomp around in fury this will lead to “getting rid” of Trump. That, and the knowledge that trying to mount a coup or incite an insurrection against a man elected to office by a majority of the citizens is really a defense of democracy.
that President Trump had been named as a “person of interest” by the FBI in its Epstein investigation and is a convicted pedophile, and he and his family have grifted millions during his terms as president.
You have to wonder what alternate reality someone like that is living in, especially since it’s likely that they also supported the hell the previous administration put us through.
Anyone wonders if the Russian government has any redeeming qualities? Forget about the fact they’re sending large swaths of their youth to their death, the war against Ukraine goes way beyond taking territory.
https://renewedright.com/ukraines-first-lady-just-told-america-something-about-melania-trump-that-every-parent-needs-to-hear/?utm_source=sovi&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rr_3306208189&utm_term=&utm_content=
How true is it? Unknown – but it makes sense from Putin’s perspective. As I pointed out at the start, Putin wants the Donbas because he needs the people and industry. Russia is a dying nation: every 30 seconds Russia suffers a net loss of one person. They’ve only got 148 million people spread out over six and a half million square miles. To get to the necessary 250 million to hold Siberia, he needs a rapid increase…
Of course, the only way he can really do it is to genuinely return to Holy Russia – even if he had to do it by compulsion. But to do that, he’d have to believe. But as long as Russians are sunk of atheistic sloth, they’ll just continue to die out. But, that won’t stop him from trying…even if he had to kidnap Russia’s future.
“To get to the necessary 250 million to hold Siberia, he needs a rapid increase…” This is no doubt related to the linked article about Melania Trump trying to get Ukrainian children back to the families after they have been kidnapped and renamed as Russian children.
“Russians are sunk of atheistic sloth”—and worse, as it is a culture of corruption. Corruption has been the hallmark of Russian governance since the Communists took over, and the effects of Communism on the people fostered an entire culture of distrust of authority coupled with the attitude that the only way to get anything was to lie, cheat or steal. The people of Russia were dragged from the rigid tyranny of the czars into the rigid tyranny of Communism, without a break.
We in the West naively thought that the fall of Communism would open up a bright sunny new approach to life so Russians could leave those old ways behind–a little arrogant, perhaps, assuming they would automatically find our democratic republic more desirable and would be eager to adopt it. But in any case, we have had a lesson in nature/nurture, as it does seem that some cultural artifacts are in the bone and blood. A culture which has been, for centuries, one of submission to tyranny can become dependent on it and seem to prefer it, and experience something like agoraphobia when it disappears and is not there to hang on to, and the giddiness of sudden release seems to have freed up an anything-goes attitude of rampant economic predation and fraud, merely shifting government corruption into the hands of a few thugs. It’s been an exchange of one kind of corruption for another, in a culture which just seems dependent on it.
And one aspect of this has been the abandonment of what used to be a deep and strong sense of faith. The Russian Orthodox Church seems to be nearly extinct in Russia, along with the faith it represented. And the current regime doesn’t appear to encourage its revival. If we need any reminders that Communism destroys all that is good, Russia is a perfect example—-it’s not enough that Communism killed the culture, it then salted the earth making it hard if not impossible to come back.
I’ve been kind of waiting for this to happen for months.
She talked a good game but her follow through just wasn’t there.
I could never understand why she didn’t take action on so many things. She had more support from her president and her party than any other AG I can remember, and so many of things were so blatantly requiring action, she just seemed paralyzed. If she was tentative because of fear of being castigated, letting down the side and failing to act is going to sting a lot more than anything some flying monkeys can say about her. Actually, it’s already been said and her best bet would have been to prove them wrong. Lee Zeldin seems aggressive and bold which is what we need. Of course, he has to be confirmed.
I’ve been looking at a transcript of what might be referred to only in the most tolerant and generous terms as the “debate” in the Supreme Court on birthright citizenship. I don’t know when I have seen such a goat-roping in the alleged guise of legal discourse. I am inclined to use the term borrowed, in shorthand, here by Cluster.
I thought the goal was to get a ruling on the actual meaning and application of the 14th Amendment. And, silly me, I thought that would involve, you know, talking about the 14th Amendment But I am seeing endless quibbling and argy-bargy about all sorts of stuff.
I might be simple-minded, but coming at this from the perspective of a normal person living a normal life in Reality, I have experience in trying to fix things that have been “fixed” in ways that actually made them worse. True, fixing a bad paint job, or even a bad remodel, isn’t as important as fixing the law that will form the entire nature of our country from here on into its future, but the concept is the same.
That is, you don’t slap another “fix” on top of the “fixes” that only made it worse. If you’ve got a crappy paint job you don’t waste time talking about what color it is, or what color is underneath it, or which layers you want to save. You scrape off everything till you get to bedrock, till you get to the foundation or the raw material under all the accumulated detritus, and then you build up from there.
And I am seeing endless distractions about “domiciles” and “allegiance” and prior rulings, none of which I think should be part of this discourse. Because the goal, as I understand it, is to determine and then apply the actual, true, original intent of the Amendment. And to me, that means opening the book, reading the Amendment, and then talking about it. Why was it passed? What was its intent? Did the wording accurately reflect the intent? Is the wording clear?
It really looks like the justices are just posturing, trying to outdo each other in “look how much case law I learned back in law school”.
So start at 1868 and look at what was written, voted on and passed into law. Who cares what anyone said or did after that? Wong Kim Ark—pshaw. It was a bad decision, and has screwed up everything since 1898. I haven’t read every word of the arguments, but have waded through enough to see them depending on two basic themes—“domicile” and “allegiance”. The first is just the location of residence, which was not consistent as the argument was based on a change of domicile and then effort to return, and the second an imprecise emotion if not grounded in legal status. Someone decided that being a “subject” was not the same as being a “citizen”—ignoring the fact that China did not use the term “citizen” to describe people under its jurisdiction. That ruling might have sufficed in an era when the international concept of citizenship was still being developed and certainly no one is arguing that it now be overturned, stripping the man of his citizenship. It’s just time to stop letting this archaic decision, based on contemporaneous standards as much as Constitutional law, controlling us to this day.
The path to the point where we are now is cluttered with a long history of misstatements, some of which (such as these from the Smithsonian) reflect not only an effort to restate the actual Amendment but to make an objection to its restatement one based on racism.
“Nativist objections to these individuals’ birthright status (known as the jus soli principle) first emerged with debates over the 1866 passage of the 14th Amendment, which stated that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. were citizens. Some white observers in the American West interpreted the amendment as an avenue for individuals of Chinese ancestry to procure citizenship but not equal civil rights, including the right to vote.”
“Nativist objections”
“Some white observers”
“the 14th Amendment, which stated that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. were citizens”
Just one short paragraph from an ostensibly trustworthy information source shows the extent of purposeful manipulation of the facts—manipulation which can only be seen as support for birthright citizenship by both lying about the wording of the Amendment and painting objections as being based in racism.
Here’s an explanation that even Portlanders can understand:
In Portland, they would be too busy checking to see if the “cow” had bullparts, and deciding how to gender the calf.
That is the key – and why nobody wants to talk about it. As I put it earlier: was an Amendment designed to secure citizenship to Freedmen intended to provide citizens to the children of illegals? The answer to that is obviously “no”…any other answer is a lie designed to deflect away from a desire to replace American citizens with foreign serfs.
But the more I think it over, the harder I come down on Marbury. Huge mistake. Not at all supported by Article III. The philosophical underpinnings of the United States as expressed in the Declaration makes judicial review an abomination. Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed. Where is consent to a judicial ruling?
Don’t get me wrong, having an independent Judiciary is crucial to any free people. We must have judges who are independent and ever vigilant in defending the rights of the people. But this really boils down to them telling the Executive: “show me what law this person violated and then prove it was violated”. That is, show me that the law you are charging under is Constitutionally valid and then show me you have Constitutionally valid proof of violation. If both elements aren’t present, gavel down, case dismissed. But in my view, even if the Court rules that the law is unconstitutional, it remains on the books until the people alter or abolish it – all the Court can do is tell the Executive to get stuffed over it…anyone brought in for violations of the law will be immediately set free. Beyond that, any judicial review becomes the making of law which is a legislative function.
And judicial review has ended up being one disaster after another…if there was anything which made the Civil War inevitable, it was Dred Scott…for all the Southern argument about State’s Rights, this decision was the actual violation of that…it told Free States that there laws were null and void if they conflicted with Slave State laws. That is, ban slavery all you want, but if anyone carries a slave into your State, you have to allow slavery. This woke up the Northerners to the fact that the “slave power” wasn’t interested in peaceful coexistence, but in compelling the whole USA to be slave…it turned many a moderate into an abolitionist overnight.
But it goes on – Plessy, Buck vs Bell, Miranda, Roe, Obergefell…over and over again the Court just made a hash of everything…when if they had just let the laws be enforced as intended by the people, none of this would have happened. Now we’re supposed to sit around with our collective thumbs up our butts waiting for 9 Justices to tell us what being a US citizen is. Nonsense. And if they rule the wrong way, they might spark a second civil war.
SAUER: We don’t think that’s the best interpretation for two reasons. One is, it would be very surprising if a statute that says exactly the constitutional phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof, were interpreted to mean something totally different or to ossify a then current misunderstanding of the clause.
We think that the best analogy here is probably state long arm statutes. Take a sort of non-controversial example. State long arm statutes routinely say we’re going to exercise personal jurisdiction to the extent of due process. It takes the constitutional standard and it puts it in the statute. And nobody thinks that those ossify are limited to this court’s precedence at the time they were enacted. Everyone thinks that that phrase, due process, incorporates, you know, the developing law of due process and minimum context and so forth, including from this court.
So, we think that’s the best analogy when it’s — when you’re looking at the constitutional phrase itself and you take it out of a freighted context, the natural interpretation is to say this means — this reflects the objective meaning of the Constitution. And the objective meaning of the Constitution is its original public meaning in 1866 and 1868.
GORSUCH: Do you see any notable counterpoints to that argument?
SAUER: I’m sure there are arguments on the other side. We’ve addressed them in their brief.
GORSUCH: So, you’re really, at the end of the day, then, this is a straight-up constitutional ruling you want from this Court, win or — win, lose, or draw?
I just wonder why it took so long to get to this point. “this is a straight-up constitutional ruling you want from this Court” based on ” the objective meaning of the Constitution is its original public meaning in 1866 and 1868″.
Spook, you haven’t mentioned this: A billion-dollar solar farm in Indiana has been wrecked by an EF-1 tornado – not a big one, as tornadoes go, but big enough.
“The facility is valued at approximately $1 billion. ” A billion dollars invested in one solar farm. In tornado country. But it gets better:
We talk about the environmental damage of building solar panels, and are ignored. We talk about the other issues of building massive solar fields, ranging from taking productive land out of production to the problems of transmission of the generated electricity, and we are ignored. Why? Because it is all worth it, in the advancement of “green” energy. Which is supposed to be more environmentally sensitive, doncha see, so much better for Mother Earth, doncha see.
Hail (which is more common in Indiana than tornados) is also not a friend to solar farms.