Best Podcast Episodes About 14th Amendment
Everything podcasters are saying about 14th Amendment — curated from top podcasts
Updated: Apr 24, 2026 – 22 episodes
Listen to the Playlist
Ridealong has curated the best and most interesting podcasts and clips about 14th Amendment.
Top Podcast Clips About 14th Amendment
“There was oral arguments this week, a case for the United States Supreme Court involving Donald Trump trying to overturn the 14th Amendment via an executive order. Just the fact that I even have to say that sentence, that you're trying to overrule a constitutional amendment via an executive order. So everybody knows executive orders are not laws. They're just supposed to be the interpretation of the executive branch, how existing laws should be implemented to the extent to which something is interpreted has to be within the bounds of a law. So, yet alone, we're talking about using …”
“There was oral arguments this week, a case for the United States Supreme Court involving Donald Trump trying to overturn the 14th Amendment via an executive order. Just the fact that I even have to say that sentence, that you're trying to overrule a constitutional amendment via an executive order. So everybody knows executive orders are not laws. They're just supposed to be the interpretation of the executive branch, how existing laws should be implemented to the extent to which something is interpreted has to be within the bounds of a law. So, yet alone, we're talking about using an executive order to try to say the 14th Amendment doesn't say what the 14th Amendment says. Without even me telling you what the 14th Amendment says, the very structure of that concept that an executive order is trying to overrule an amendment is something that should tell you already that it the height of frivolous But let me just read for you …”
View more
Ridealong summary
Trump's attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment via executive order is frivolous and fundamentally misunderstands constitutional law.
Trump's attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment via executive order is seen as frivolous and fundamentally flawed.
Trump's attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment via executive order is frivolous and fundamentally misinterprets the Constitution.
The attempt to use an executive order to overturn the 14th Amendment is frivolous and fundamentally flawed.
“Donald Trump is losing it as the call to invoke the 25th Amendment grows louder. Donald Trump physically and mentally deteriorating before our eyes, rotting in public, both in terms of his presidency and in terms of his health, in my opinion. Dr. Vin Gupta, who leads Midas Health, posted the following yesterday. Erratic, can't finish sentences, often confused, illogical train of thought, word finding difficulties, developing and worsening gradually over time. The president is exhibiting all the signs of …”
“Donald Trump is losing it as the call to invoke the 25th Amendment grows louder. Donald Trump physically and mentally deteriorating before our eyes, rotting in public, both in terms of his presidency and in terms of his health, in my opinion. Dr. Vin Gupta, who leads Midas Health, posted the following yesterday. Erratic, can't finish sentences, often confused, illogical train of thought, word finding difficulties, developing and worsening gradually over time. The president is exhibiting all the signs of dementia. Let me repeat that again. A world renowned doctor who leads Midas Health is saying Donald Trump exhibits all the classic signs of dementia. And it's pretty obvious, in my opinion, when you look at Donald Trump, that that's exactly what's going on. Either that early onset Alzheimer's, whatever it is, it is rapidly accelerating. Now, earlier …”
View more
Ridealong summary
Donald Trump is mentally deteriorating and poses a national security threat, necessitating the invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove him from office immediately.
Donald Trump's deteriorating mental health and erratic behavior pose an immediate threat to national and global security, necessitating urgent invocation of the 25th Amendment.
Donald Trump is rapidly deteriorating mentally and physically, posing a significant threat to national and global security.
“And so after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was enacted principally to undo Dred Scott, meaning that enslaved people, their children, are citizens and will forevermore be citizens. In fact, what the 14th Amendment says is that anyone born in this country or naturalized, right, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. And so the debate now is, what does that phrase mean, subject to the jurisdiction of? There's an 1898 Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark, that seems to …”
“And so after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was enacted principally to undo Dred Scott, meaning that enslaved people, their children, are citizens and will forevermore be citizens. In fact, what the 14th Amendment says is that anyone born in this country or naturalized, right, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. And so the debate now is, what does that phrase mean, subject to the jurisdiction of? There's an 1898 Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark, that seems to answer the question. The president and his team took another swing at it. And so to answer your question, why is this before the Supreme Court? It's because the president issued an executive order on his first day in his second term, trying to undo what we think is the common understanding of the 14th Amendment. And that's the problem I have with Donald …”
View more
Ridealong summary
Donald Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship is driven by a desire to appease a small sect of Americans and undermines the fundamental principles of the 14th Amendment.
Donald Trump's attempt to alter birthright citizenship is driven by a desire to appease a small, exclusionary group rather than respect constitutional principles.
The framers of the 14th Amendment intended for birthright citizenship to be a universal rule, supporting immigration and growth without regard to parentage.
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is a dangerous attempt to undermine the 14th Amendment and appease a narrow, exclusionary base.
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is a dangerous attempt to undermine the 14th Amendment and appease a small, exclusionary group of Americans.
The Supreme Court's decision on birthright citizenship could undermine the fundamental understanding of citizenship by allowing political agendas to influence constitutional interpretation.
“… for example, that there are quite severe restrictions on what kinds of regulations there can be of firearms, of guns. And that's the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but it's also an amendment to the Constitution, much like the 14th Amendment was an amendment to the Constitution. Tell me a little bit more. One of the most unprecedented aspects of these arguments is the fact that the president was actually there. Can you tell me a little bit more about his reaction throughout all of this or how that impacted things? Well, I have to tell you in truth that sitting in the press section, I …”
“I know it may have problems today, policy problems, but it is what the Constitution says, and that is sort of the way the court, because this is a very originalist court, it doesn't think it's a living Constitution. And in the same way, it believes, for example, that there are quite severe restrictions on what kinds of regulations there can be of firearms, of guns. And that's the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but it's also an amendment to the Constitution, much like the 14th Amendment was an amendment to the Constitution. Tell me a little bit more. One of the most unprecedented aspects of these arguments is the fact that the president was actually there. Can you tell me a little bit more about his reaction throughout all of this or how that impacted things? Well, I have to tell you in truth that sitting in the press section, I don't think any of us, except maybe one or two people on the far end, could see the president at all. and the White House had imposed a new restriction on how we cover the court, which is they told us to sit down before the court started, the proceedings started. The guards told us to sit down and I very clearly said, you know, this is our job is to …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The Supreme Court's skepticism towards Trump's birthright citizenship executive order suggests a challenging path for its proponents, highlighting potential constitutional conflicts.
The Supreme Court's skepticism towards Trump's birthright citizenship executive order suggests potential challenges to its constitutionality, but the implications remain uncertain.
The Supreme Court's decision on birthright citizenship could disrupt American laws and affect millions, but the justices' skepticism suggests a careful consideration of historical context and modern implications.
The Supreme Court's deliberation on birthright citizenship reveals deep skepticism about the government's restrictive interpretation, highlighting potential constitutional upheaval and the risk of disenfranchising millions.
The Supreme Court's review of birthright citizenship could destabilize the constitutional foundation of citizenship for millions, challenging longstanding interpretations.
“… demanding that Donald Trump be removed from office. We need to be demanding that Congress convene today, and we need to be invoking the 25th Amendment. This is a very dangerous moment and a very dangerous president. Okay, that is just this week from Democrats. Here they are again. What exactly would have to happen to invoke the 25th Amendment in this country? Obviously, in an ideal world, you would try to invoke the 25th Amendment, which I think is amply justified. The man is deeply mentally unstable. The cabinet should... Yeah, that was during Trump's first administration. And I'm really …”
“… on. I had a little montage I wanted to play here. Let me see if I can find it. I'll get to one second here. The Democrat Party has been just throwing a temper tantrum for about a decade now. Here, here, okay, here, here, here. These are Democrats actually demanding that Donald Trump be removed from office. We need to be demanding that Congress convene today, and we need to be invoking the 25th Amendment. This is a very dangerous moment and a very dangerous president. Okay, that is just this week from Democrats. Here they are again. What exactly would have to happen to invoke the 25th Amendment in this country? Obviously, in an ideal world, you would try to invoke the 25th Amendment, which I think is amply justified. The man is deeply mentally unstable. The cabinet should... Yeah, that was during Trump's first administration. And I'm really getting sick and damn tired of this crap, to be quite honest. And now they're saying Donald Trump has to be impeached. There is no doubt that this president's conduct has already exceeded any prior standard for impeachment. No, not at all, actually. You already impeached him twice, you jerks. Just getting tired of it. I'm getting sick and tired of it. …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The ongoing calls for invoking the 25th Amendment against Trump are seen as a tiresome and repetitive political tactic by Democrats.
“… but it really is at the heart of this whole thing, is how can this be? Everybody knows, the left, the right, the middle, everybody knows what the 14th Amendment is about. everyone understands it was about slaves everybody knows everyone knows so how can we be in this situation where our legal system allows people from all over the world to just come here and crap out a kid and they're american citizens how how can this be yeah and unfortunately jesse it's something you know you've talked about for years and i think the rising generation zoomers are very well aware of this, but the old playbook that was …”
“All right, Theo, I'm going to pick my heart up off the floor here and ask a couple of stupid questions if you bear with me here. And the lamest one I can possibly ask, but it really is at the heart of this whole thing, is how can this be? Everybody knows, the left, the right, the middle, everybody knows what the 14th Amendment is about. everyone understands it was about slaves everybody knows everyone knows so how can we be in this situation where our legal system allows people from all over the world to just come here and crap out a kid and they're american citizens how how can this be yeah and unfortunately jesse it's something you know you've talked about for years and i think the rising generation zoomers are very well aware of this, but the old playbook that was made popular by President Bush and then continued by Mitch McConnell, the idea that you focus everything on the judiciary, you nominate judges, you use all of the legislative calendar for nomination hearings, and you quote, stock the judiciary with originalists and textualists. All that really did produce was a regime type where we're now, it's …”
View more
Ridealong summary
Amending the Constitution might be the only way to redefine the 14th Amendment's implications on citizenship. To do so, we need the ratification of 30 states, and this can be initiated by Congress or state conventions. Engaging the public is crucial to drive this movement and reshape how we understand citizenship in America.
“… just children and being without country, being without sovereignty because of this question of their parents. And, you know, it's just part of the 14th Amendment not just talks about where you where you were born, but also subject to the laws of, you know, subject to the laws or the jurisdiction of the United States. And I think a really important point is the only people who aren't subject to the laws of the United States are a very, very small number of people, such as diplomats, right? And when I was a prosecutor, we had to deal with this where a diplomat would be accused of a crime and even arrested …”
“… about today You know Amy Coney Barrett was saying what about they call them foundlings babies who are abandoned after birth Right. And whose parents are unknown. What do you do with with those babies? I mean, they were really concerned about the just children and being without country, being without sovereignty because of this question of their parents. And, you know, it's just part of the 14th Amendment not just talks about where you where you were born, but also subject to the laws of, you know, subject to the laws or the jurisdiction of the United States. And I think a really important point is the only people who aren't subject to the laws of the United States are a very, very small number of people, such as diplomats, right? And when I was a prosecutor, we had to deal with this where a diplomat would be accused of a crime and even arrested for a crime. And we had to release them. We had to literally release them and send them, give them to their country because they are not subject to the laws of the United States. But whether you're documented or undocumented, whether you are here as a tourist or you are here as a visitor, you are subject to the laws of the United States. You will …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The 14th Amendment's protections, including birthright citizenship, apply to everyone under U.S. jurisdiction, reinforcing the idea that the Constitution is inclusive of all individuals present in the country.
The 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause should apply to everyone subject to U.S. laws, reinforcing the Constitution's universal application.
“Terms apply on covered repairs Speaking of irrational behavior Ryan let move to the 25th Amendment because there are plenty of people on the right interestingly enough who were calling yesterday on the brink of potential total war, potential nuclear war, for Trump to be 25th Amendment, and Amendment-ed, if we convert that into a verb. Now, Julian, your guy at DropSite, Julian's great, worth a follow, Julian Andreone has been collecting responses from members of Congress, mostly Democrats, perhaps entirely Democrats here in this thread that …”
“Terms apply on covered repairs Speaking of irrational behavior Ryan let move to the 25th Amendment because there are plenty of people on the right interestingly enough who were calling yesterday on the brink of potential total war, potential nuclear war, for Trump to be 25th Amendment, and Amendment-ed, if we convert that into a verb. Now, Julian, your guy at DropSite, Julian's great, worth a follow, Julian Andreone has been collecting responses from members of Congress, mostly Democrats, perhaps entirely Democrats here in this thread that he had on X, Democratic members of Congress calling for Donald Trump to be pushed out via the 25th Amendment, saying, for example, he is unfit for office. That's a common language. Alhan Omar said, quote, this is not OK. Invoke the 25th Amendment impeach removed. This unhinged lunatic must be removed from office. This is in response to the quote, …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The calls for invoking the 25th Amendment against Trump highlight a bipartisan concern over his fitness for office, with even former allies like Marjorie Taylor Greene expressing alarm at his recent statements.
“… was, hey, you know, we want all the chips in the middle of the table. We want a clear and unequivocal answer from you guys about the meaning of the 14th Amendment And unfortunately Jesse what that means then is you know the answer they going to give us probably negative means they're going to say for all time and all purposes, the 14th Amendment means this, and it's not what you guys think it means. The answer then is going to become, what do we do about that? And I think the obvious answer for coming out of today's hearing is it's about time for this vast con ink and all the sort of think tanks and the …”
“… has passed over the years. And the question was put to him is, do you want us to settle this on the statutory grounds or the constitutional grounds? And the Solicitor General's response was essentially, you know, for lay people who aren't lawyers, it was, hey, you know, we want all the chips in the middle of the table. We want a clear and unequivocal answer from you guys about the meaning of the 14th Amendment And unfortunately Jesse what that means then is you know the answer they going to give us probably negative means they're going to say for all time and all purposes, the 14th Amendment means this, and it's not what you guys think it means. The answer then is going to become, what do we do about that? And I think the obvious answer for coming out of today's hearing is it's about time for this vast con ink and all the sort of think tanks and the apparatus of the right to get together and really start having meaningful conversations about amending the constitution he's right there's a good chance and i'm not dooming i'm just based on the verbal arguments back and forth that we may lose this we can't just lose a guy give up it's your country's not giving up that flag behind me matters is …”
View more
Ridealong summary
If the Supreme Court rules against us, the interpretation of the 14th Amendment could jeopardize future elections for the Republican Party. This could lead to an open border policy under a Democratic presidency, enabling significant demographic changes that threaten electoral viability. The urgent call is for a backup plan to potentially amend the Constitution and secure the nation’s future.
“… to cross the border, you got to get organized on that. If you're dealing with immigration, if you're observing the police and engaging in your First Amendment right to film or observe the police, the number of people who are targeted by this administration is great and it's changing. So even if you think you're safe now and you can just opt out and say, like, I guess it's all over. I don't have to. I can't fight anymore. Like, I think that's a somewhat privileged position because I don't think we have a choice but to try to push forward. That's kind of the hard side of it. I think the good side of it …”
“… up your neighbors and throwing them, you know, deporting them. They're, you know, the loss of privacy and the concerns might be a little more abstract, but they're increasingly not abstract. If you're people seeking reproductive help and you got to cross the border, you got to get organized on that. If you're dealing with immigration, if you're observing the police and engaging in your First Amendment right to film or observe the police, the number of people who are targeted by this administration is great and it's changing. So even if you think you're safe now and you can just opt out and say, like, I guess it's all over. I don't have to. I can't fight anymore. Like, I think that's a somewhat privileged position because I don't think we have a choice but to try to push forward. That's kind of the hard side of it. I think the good side of it is, you know, for me anyway, it's been full of fun people. It's been full of exciting work. I like standing up in a righteous fight. You know, I've been telling my friends, I feel a little like I'm the, I'm like the doctor in the emergency room. Like I am not happy that the accident happened, but I'm here to try to patch it up as best I can. And I …”
View more
Ridealong summary
If we don't fight for our online privacy, we risk losing it entirely. The conversation highlights the importance of standing up against increasing government surveillance and the implications for vulnerable populations. Despite the daunting challenges, the speaker emphasizes the value of community and the necessity of this righteous fight.
“… the Constitution. It's not part of any official statute. It wasn't part of the debate in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which was the predecessor to the 14th Amendment, which was passed in 1868. The idea of immigration, let alone illegal immigration, was on nobody's mind. It wasn't even in their imagination. the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments are called the post-civil war amendments and the purpose of those amendments are to ensure and were to ensure that the newly freed black slaves were treated like citizens for all purposes equal protection, due process that their children were treated as citizens because …”
“… problem when you have a lot of lawyers who are just spinning, using semantics, and so forth. This is actually a very simple case. But they don't want to rule the right way, I'm convinced. The word or the phrase birthright citizenship is nowhere in the Constitution. It's not part of any official statute. It wasn't part of the debate in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which was the predecessor to the 14th Amendment, which was passed in 1868. The idea of immigration, let alone illegal immigration, was on nobody's mind. It wasn't even in their imagination. the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments are called the post-civil war amendments and the purpose of those amendments are to ensure and were to ensure that the newly freed black slaves were treated like citizens for all purposes equal protection, due process that their children were treated as citizens because after all many of them were here longer than their owners or their previous owners. Now why did they make this constitutional amendment, 14th or this part of the 14th Amendment? Why did they do that? Because two years earlier in 1866, they had passed a Civil Rights Act of 1866 that basically did the same thing. A Civil Rights Act that nationwide …”
View more
Ridealong summary
Birthright citizenship isn't actually outlined in the Constitution or any statute, revealing a significant flaw in its legal standing. This misunderstanding stems from historical debates around the 14th Amendment, which was designed to protect the rights of freed black slaves and their children. The lack of clarity around this issue raises questions about the legitimacy of current legal arguments supporting birthright citizenship.
“… just have it wrong here is on that particular way of viewing things. And here's the reason. So there's there's the constitutional provision of the 14th Amendment that says not subject to the jurisdiction of. And there's a statute, I don't remember when it was passed, 1950s or something, that uses the exact same language to set the immigration rule. And the idea here is that there's a theoretical world where the Supreme Court could interpret the statute and say President Trump's executive order violates the statute, but then not the Constitution itself. But that is, it's a kind of bizarre way of …”
“… because Congress has assumed this and our immigration laws and so on And they just seem they just feel like the way those swing justices are taking their questions is not good for us Well, so I actually don't think I think that your friends just have it wrong here is on that particular way of viewing things. And here's the reason. So there's there's the constitutional provision of the 14th Amendment that says not subject to the jurisdiction of. And there's a statute, I don't remember when it was passed, 1950s or something, that uses the exact same language to set the immigration rule. And the idea here is that there's a theoretical world where the Supreme Court could interpret the statute and say President Trump's executive order violates the statute, but then not the Constitution itself. But that is, it's a kind of bizarre way of approaching things because they use literally identical words. And so you generally, when a congressional statute mimics the exact language of a constitutional provision, you don't – especially if you're trying to get a new understanding of what that means, you're going to effectively be interpreting both. And the new statute isn't going to be interpreted …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The Supreme Court's interpretation of birthright citizenship could hinge on whether statutory language mimicking the 14th Amendment is seen as extending its original meaning.
The Supreme Court's interpretation of birthright citizenship should consider both the constitutional language of the 14th Amendment and the statutory language, which are often identical, to avoid a bizarre legal outcome.
“… Lutnick to observe arguments in the case of Trump v. Barbara, a case under which Trump hopes to end the birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The case argued before the court today grew out of Trump's executive order of January 20, 2025, the day he took the oath of office a second time, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. Fulfilling a campaign promise, the order declared that, contrary to the 14th Amendment, individuals born in the United States are not citizens if their parents do not have legal permanent status. With the help of the American Civil …”
“… attended oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court. President Donald J. Trump broke precedent to take a seat in the front row of the Supreme Court's public seating area, alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to observe arguments in the case of Trump v. Barbara, a case under which Trump hopes to end the birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The case argued before the court today grew out of Trump's executive order of January 20, 2025, the day he took the oath of office a second time, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. Fulfilling a campaign promise, the order declared that, contrary to the 14th Amendment, individuals born in the United States are not citizens if their parents do not have legal permanent status. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, and other partners, three families who represented the many people endangered by this order sued the administration. Barbara, for whom the case is named, is an applicant for asylum from Honduras whose baby was due after the order was set to go into effect. Trump has called for ending birthright citizenship since his first term …”
View more
Ridealong summary
Ending birthright citizenship would overturn the central idea of equality in the United States as articulated in the Declaration of Independence.
Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship is an appeal to racist supporters and threatens the foundational American principle of equality.
Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship is a direct attack on the core American principle of equality as articulated in the Declaration of Independence.
The attempt to end birthright citizenship undermines the foundational American principle of equality articulated in the Declaration of Independence.
Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship is a direct attack on the core American principle of equality as articulated in the Declaration of Independence.
“… and that there's a difference between territorial jurisdiction and political jurisdiction. And it is absolutely clear from what the authors of the 14th Amendment wrote and said in debate that they intended, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to mean political jurisdiction. In other words, allegiance, allegiance to the United States and not allegiance to any foreign power. And it is preposterous to argue that illegal aliens or temporary visitors, whether they're tourists or foreign students or whatever, have any allegiance to the United States of America, to our government. You can't be you have to be …”
“… I'm clearly biased, but the solicitor general did a great job in those arguments, I thought. It was very clear that at least one of the justices has no concept of much of anything, but certainly didn't understand the meaning of the word jurisdiction and that there's a difference between territorial jurisdiction and political jurisdiction. And it is absolutely clear from what the authors of the 14th Amendment wrote and said in debate that they intended, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to mean political jurisdiction. In other words, allegiance, allegiance to the United States and not allegiance to any foreign power. And it is preposterous to argue that illegal aliens or temporary visitors, whether they're tourists or foreign students or whatever, have any allegiance to the United States of America, to our government. You can't be you have to be a lawful permanent resident, essentially, which is what was decided by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Arp when they said that the parents were legally domiciled. And so, therefore, their child was an American at birth. So, you know, if the justices look at what the actual language of the 14th Amendment meant at the time it was written, and that is …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The Trump administration's move to end birthright citizenship is gaining traction, with arguments presented that challenge its legitimacy. A Supreme Court hearing revealed deep divisions on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, particularly regarding what 'jurisdiction' truly means. The outcome could reshape the future of citizenship in America, especially for children born to non-citizens.
“… Gorsuch and his interactions with John Sauer? Well, I hope that all of these justices go through the briefs. They go through the plain text of the 14th Amendment and subsequent legislation, and they look at the original public meaning. And I think if they do that, if they actually go through that exercise of textualism and originalism, which is how they sold themselves to get the job, I think that the answer is very clear here. The 14th Amendments, we had the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, the post-Civil War constitutional amendments, the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery, the 14th Amendment provide …”
“… put the politics up, I don't think, but he had some pretty, he looked like he was not convinced. I'm not a lawyer. I'm certainly not a constitutional lawyer, but just Gorsuch, I thought, had some of those searing questions. Your thoughts about Justice Gorsuch and his interactions with John Sauer? Well, I hope that all of these justices go through the briefs. They go through the plain text of the 14th Amendment and subsequent legislation, and they look at the original public meaning. And I think if they do that, if they actually go through that exercise of textualism and originalism, which is how they sold themselves to get the job, I think that the answer is very clear here. The 14th Amendments, we had the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, the post-Civil War constitutional amendments, the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery, the 14th Amendment provide equal protection and due process to the freed slaves, the 15th Amendment provide voting rights to the freed male slaves. That was extended to black women with the 19th Amendment, all women, but including the black women with the 19th Amendment. As part of the 14th Amendment, we had the Dred Scott decision after the Civil War. And it was an abomination …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The 14th Amendment was not intended to grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens or foreign nationals.
The 14th Amendment was not intended to grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens or foreign nationals, and the Supreme Court should consider this original intent.
The 14th Amendment was not intended to grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens or foreign nationals, and the Supreme Court should consider this original intent.
The 14th Amendment was not intended to grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens or foreign nationals.
The 14th Amendment was not intended to grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens or foreign nationals, and doing so would misinterpret its original purpose.
“… was very interesting and somewhat disingenuous when the lawyer, you know, for birthright citizenship, arguing for birthright citizenship, said the 14th Amendment, it's clear that it's exclusive and there can't be any further exceptions. I totally disagree with that 100%. How do you suppose the Supreme Court is leaning? It sounded like Clarence Thomas made some brilliant points yesterday, but I'm seeing a few legal experts who feel like Donald Trump's executive order is going to be overturned. What is your gut telling you? Yeah, well, it's apples and oranges. There's two different discussions under my …”
“… children of diplomats point, children of invaders point? Can it be expanded to include children of two people who entered illegally? My answer is yes, it can. Well, of course. Of course. Congress could do that easily. All right. And so I thought it was very interesting and somewhat disingenuous when the lawyer, you know, for birthright citizenship, arguing for birthright citizenship, said the 14th Amendment, it's clear that it's exclusive and there can't be any further exceptions. I totally disagree with that 100%. How do you suppose the Supreme Court is leaning? It sounded like Clarence Thomas made some brilliant points yesterday, but I'm seeing a few legal experts who feel like Donald Trump's executive order is going to be overturned. What is your gut telling you? Yeah, well, it's apples and oranges. There's two different discussions under my analysis. So, first of all, I don't think, believe it or not, that the executive order is the way to do it. I just said a minute ago that Congress would be the vehicle to do it. So I think that the court is going to say a little crystal ball stuff that the executive order wasn't the way to go. But they're not going to be that negative. They're going …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The Supreme Court may punt the decision on birthright citizenship to Congress, suggesting legislative action rather than an executive order is the appropriate path.
The Supreme Court is likely to reject Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship but may suggest that Congress has the power to change the law.
The Supreme Court is likely to reject Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship but may suggest Congress has the authority to change the law.
The Supreme Court is likely to reject Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship but may suggest Congress has the authority to change the law.
The Supreme Court may punt on the executive order but could allow Congress to expand federal law to limit birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court could allow Congress to expand federal law to exclude certain groups from birthright citizenship, challenging the notion that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship.
“… is the roommate, lover, whatever you want to characterize, I don't think for a second, I would be shocked if this person did not invoke the Fifth Amendment. If I'm representing that guy, I'm saying go pound sand. You want this person to testify? I'm not testifying. Absent immunity. And then the prosecution has to make the decision. Are we going to give transactional? Are we going to give use immunity to this person before we know what they're going to say? Object to the use of the word person. We're not sure. It's a furry of some sort.”
“… that should be admitted there going to be a further battle over whether or not there is transference or whether or not this is a adequate safeguards were taken for the chain of custody The other problem with the witness that they put on the list which is the roommate, lover, whatever you want to characterize, I don't think for a second, I would be shocked if this person did not invoke the Fifth Amendment. If I'm representing that guy, I'm saying go pound sand. You want this person to testify? I'm not testifying. Absent immunity. And then the prosecution has to make the decision. Are we going to give transactional? Are we going to give use immunity to this person before we know what they're going to say? Object to the use of the word person. We're not sure. It's a furry of some sort.”
View more
Ridealong summary
In a recent discussion, experts revealed the complexities surrounding DNA evidence in trials, particularly when mixtures involve five or more individuals. This raises significant challenges regarding admissibility and the reliability of the evidence, as well as potential complications with witness testimony. The defense may invoke the Fifth Amendment, leaving prosecutors in a tough spot on how to proceed.
“… universities come out to join a Republican candidate because they're not scared that I talk about my faith. They're not scared to support Second Amendment rights and want a strong America. They're sick of being told that they're racist, they're xenophobic, they're homophobic. They just want to be left alone and they want their chance for the future of American opportunity. And so I thought that was going to be, I thought I was going to have to run as like this caricature where I'm like moderate and don't embrace like the party values and don embrace like my love of country But the harder I lean …”
“… now, building the team, doing the grassroots work. And you don't rise the occasion, you fall back to your training, you fall back to your principles. And for, that's why it's so great to see all these young males and young females at these collegiate universities come out to join a Republican candidate because they're not scared that I talk about my faith. They're not scared to support Second Amendment rights and want a strong America. They're sick of being told that they're racist, they're xenophobic, they're homophobic. They just want to be left alone and they want their chance for the future of American opportunity. And so I thought that was going to be, I thought I was going to have to run as like this caricature where I'm like moderate and don't embrace like the party values and don embrace like my love of country But the harder I lean into my faith my love of country the values that made our country great that we straying away from the more people are actually jumping on the team which is kind of beautiful It really exciting to see Yeah it rewarding Yeah very rewarding”
View more
Ridealong summary
In a compelling reflection, Senate candidate Adam Schwarze emphasizes that true leadership is about preparation and values, not just rising to the occasion. Drawing from his military experience, he explains how building a values-based team has empowered young voters to embrace their beliefs and engage in the political process. This election is not just another campaign; it's a critical moment for the future of Minnesota.
“… That's suicide. That was never intended. That's absurd. We're only one of a couple of nations worldwide that does this. And you got to twist the 14th Amendment into something that it's not in order to justify it? Seriously? And if they now constitutionalize birthright citizenship, well, I don't see how we'll recover from it. I really don't. now some of these justices are worried they don't want the bullhorns they don't want the drum beating they don't want the marching in front of their homes they're worried that they will be viewed as Dred Scott justices they worry about their legacy, their history …”
“which China is doing now. They counted 500 companies that are doing this, 100,000 a year. That's suicide. That was never intended. That's absurd. We're only one of a couple of nations worldwide that does this. And you got to twist the 14th Amendment into something that it's not in order to justify it? Seriously? And if they now constitutionalize birthright citizenship, well, I don't see how we'll recover from it. I really don't. now some of these justices are worried they don't want the bullhorns they don't want the drum beating they don't want the marching in front of their homes they're worried that they will be viewed as Dred Scott justices they worry about their legacy, their history they worry about what the law professors will say what jerks like this guy on CNN what the hell is his name this cocky know nothing hold on I'll get his name. Give me one second. Count to five. It doesn't even matter what. Oh, L.A. Honig, legal analyst. He was a prosecutor. Oh, well, he must know everything. He knows nothing. And so you've got …”
View more
Ridealong summary
The potential constitutionalization of birthright citizenship could lead to dire consequences for the United States, allowing children of illegal aliens to gain full citizenship rights. This alarming shift raises concerns about the implications for national security and military service, especially if they are raised in countries like China. The debate hinges on judicial interpretations of the 14th Amendment, which some argue are being twisted beyond their original intent.
“And don't be fooled by the fact that this case is about therapy. The First Amendment applies to everybody, not just therapists. If Jackson can force a therapist to endorse gender ideology it only a matter of time before she writes an opinion forcing everyone else to do the same Let put this section from her dissent up on the screen just to drive that point home Jackson writes quote though these prescriptions certainly promote a certain viewpoint in this context, that alone does not suffice to establish a First Amendment …”
“And don't be fooled by the fact that this case is about therapy. The First Amendment applies to everybody, not just therapists. If Jackson can force a therapist to endorse gender ideology it only a matter of time before she writes an opinion forcing everyone else to do the same Let put this section from her dissent up on the screen just to drive that point home Jackson writes quote though these prescriptions certainly promote a certain viewpoint in this context, that alone does not suffice to establish a First Amendment violation. My colleagues conclusions are puzzling for a standards based health care scheme cannot function unless its regulators are permitted to choose sides. So she's just coming out and saying it. In her view, regulators should be able to choose sides in an ideological dispute and force everyone else to agree with them. In her view, that doesn't amount …”
View more
Ridealong summary
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argues that banning conversion therapy isn't a violation of the First Amendment because it's about regulating conduct, not speech. This reasoning opens the door for potential government overreach in regulating all forms of expression, as speech is inherently tied to conduct. Understanding this perspective raises critical questions about the limits of free speech in ideological disputes.
Top Podcasts About 14th Amendment
Bannon`s War Room
3 episodes
Mark Levin Podcast
3 episodes
Legal AF by MeidasTouch
2 episodes
The Rob Carson Show
2 episodes
The MeidasTouch Podcast
1 episode
The NPR Politics Podcast
1 episode
The Jesse Kelly Show
1 episode
Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
1 episode
Stories Mentioning 14th Amendment
Top Podcasts on Trump's Health Concerns
Recent reports have raised questions about Donald Trump's health and behavior, sparking discussions about his fitness for leadership. This scrutiny comes amid ongoing political and legal challenges, highlighting the potential impact on his political career and public perception.