Does Jesus & Supremes Want Birthright Citizenship?

Letter to Romans: Thru His crucifixion, Jesus made EVERYONE to be born a potential Christian, but He never said everyone born in USA automatically becomes a US citizen. The 14^th Amendment suggested as much, but Trump’s DOJ says it’s been interpreted too broadly. So?

Progressives & the MSM are saying the key case to be heard by the Justices on Wednesday is a slam dunk. And, as the WSJ says, the 14^thAmendment meant primarily to ensure citizenship of the freed slaves has “long been understood to grant automatic birthright citizenship to all with only a few narrow exceptions … The Supreme Court did affirm the broad understanding of the citizenship clause in a landmark 1898 decision that upheld the American citizenship of a man born to Chinese parents living in California.” Even most conservative commentators still agree with that take. But not all. GW Law Professor Jonathan Turley, for one, cautions Team Trump is making sense in reminding today’s High Court that, in modern times, the Amendment has encouraged a wave of pregnant immigrants to sneak into the country just to give birth and not allegiance to America; as the DOJ argues, the 14^th Amendment’s reference to “jurisdiction” was intended to restrict its scope to prevent future developments like this. NYU Law Prof Richard Epstein wrote in an amicus brief, “The conventional view is [simply] wrong.”

Still, the chances of today’s Supreme Court modifying if not overturning birth right citizenship gospel according to Progressive dogma & the WSJ’s Heavenly Choir is small. The WSJ says it’s not just because the “three liberal justices” on today’s Court “are all but certain to vote against Trump’s” interpretation embodied in an earlier Executive Order (that’s been called unconstitutional by six lower courts). The paper also called out earlier comments by conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh & Clarence Thomas expressing doubts the 14^th Amendment was meant to be interpreted as anything but all inclusive, especially if/when coupled with the Constitution’s “Equal Protection” clause. A possible all-inclusive bottom line: Regardless of the outcome, it will be good to finally have clarity on this key historical legal issue.

Davd Soul