WilsonBlock1000 Radio

Featured News

Why Birthright Citizenship Is a Legislative Matter—Not Judicial or Executive

By Michael Taylor | ThaWilsonBlock Magazine The question of who qualifies for American citizenship is not just a moral or political debate — it is a constitutional one. For over a century, courts and executive agencies have applied birthright citizenship in a way that defies the intent of the 14th Amendment and undermines Congress’s constitutional authority. This practice, particularly as it applies to children born to undocumented immigrants, raises a serious challenge: > Can individuals derive irrevocable constitutional benefits from ongoing unlawful presence? And if not, why has the judiciary allowed it? This question strikes at the heart of the rule of law. The answer lies in decades of misinterpretation, judicial drift, and administrative neglect. The issue is not emotional. It is structural. And it belongs squarely with Congress, not the courts or the White House. --- 🔎 The 14th Amendment’s Soft Spot: Jurisdiction The 14th Amendment states: > “All persons born ...

Donald Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution of the United States as president

 Mod: People fought in wars and died to defend the Constitution. But that's not Donald's style.

Trump tells court he had no duty to 'support' the Constitution as president (Raw Story link): Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.

The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), seeking to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment. The Insurrection Clause of the amendment prohibits those who have "engaged in insurrection" against the United States from holding a civil, military, or elected office unless a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate approve.
But Trump's lawyers are arguing that the specific language of the Constitution argues that this requirement only applies to people in offices who are bound to "support" the Constitution — and the presidency is not one of those offices.

"The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution — not to 'support' the Constitution," said the filing by Trump's attorneys. 

"Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President."


The former president has already tried to remove the 14th Amendment case to federal court, but this motion was denied.


Mod: More at the link.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

The Sierra Madre Tattler! https://ift.tt/cnqfWAQ

Comments

Mistah Wilson's Podcast

Pasadena Music Scene

Seattle Music Scene

Los Angeles Music Scene

Political Narratives

Religious Narratives

Hip Hop Narratives

Sports Narratives

Meet Tha Artist (Full Stories)

Street Sign Photography