April 2nd, 2026

Rough transcription of Hour 1

Segment 1

Welcome. Obviously, we were celebrating Passover last night. Some celebrate two nights. I will celebrate half a night after the program. But that said, I wanted to talk about this birthright citizenship oral argument. I would say 90% of it was superfluous. 90% of it was a result looking for an argument, the result being to uphold it. To uphold what? It’s not in the Constitution. It’s not in the statute. But this is the 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, 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 work 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. The 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 would recognize free black slaves now as citizens and their children. Or future children as citizens and every child thereafter. Now, why did they do that? Because there was resistance in some of the old Confederate states to treating even black freed black slaves and their children and their and their soon to be babies and children as citizens. So they passed a federal statute. Well, then why did they amend the Constitution? Because the president at that time was Andrew Johnson, a Democrat. From Tennessee, Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act that was passed by the Republicans. They overrode his veto. So it became the law, but they quickly realized they needed to enshrine it in the Constitution to ensure that every corner of the United States. Would recognize it. And they even strong arm some of the southern states. They weren’t all that interested in any of those amendments that they were either to adopt the amendments or what was the Union Army, but now the federal Army. Would remain in their states. And so three fourths of the states. Adopted the 13th, then the 14th and the 15th Amendments. Now the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment. I despise most of these legal commentators, including this clown on CNN. I despise them because they’re deceitful. So they write this amendment. We have to the extent they debated it, we have the debates on this amendment. I’ve gone through them with you at least five times over the last 20 some years. I’ve done it on Fox three or four times and I have posted yesterday I posted two of my videos from my discussion about this on Fox. Jurisdiction there. I know what it means. All the justices know what it means. Obviously, the solicitor general who did a great job, he knows what it means. The ACLU knows what it means. But they don’t want it to mean what it means. That is certain justices and certainly the ACLU. Now let’s step back and think just this common sense. You don’t have to be lawyers, let alone Supreme Court litigators. Let’s just step back. The Civil War ends 1865. You’ve got reconstruction going on. Their hands are full. You still have elements within the South in the Confederacy, and some in the North are resisting the end of the Civil War. And so they’re focused on reconstruction and they’re focused. On how the newly freed slaves and then their children are going to be treated. And they want to impose this on the entire country through the amendment process. Do you think for a minute that they were thinking of immigration, let alone illegal immigration, let alone the children of illegal immigrants? Not for one second did they think about that. Which is exactly why not a single justice on the other side, nor the ACLU advocate could present any such language. And so we have to make. Arguments if you’re on that side. Do try and expand the definition or to try and latch on to something. So there’s arguments about policy. There’s arguments about, well, why we’re going to de naturalize people. There’s arguments over administration. There’s argument over intent. There’s argument all over the map. That’s not the job of a justice. That can all be figured out by the executive branch and the legislative branches. That’s not the question. The question is, what does that constitution compel? It’s not an administrative question. It’s not a policy question. It’s not even an English common law question. With all due respect to the solicitor general. It is a black and white issue. It’s not complicated. But they’re worried. They’re nervous. My take and I hope I’m wrong, is that the majority just doesn’t want to do this. Because even up to this point. People like me were called crazy, even challenged this funny, crazy already crackpots. What? Extremists? No, I’m a constitutionalist. That’s what I’ve been all my life. The whole constitutional conservative movement was born right here behind this microphone. Behind this microphone. I was also part of the administration, the Reagan administration, the great attorney General Meese. And the whole push for originalism. That we put in to the justice system as it was ignored. I know damn well what I’m talking about. And so you probably were listening the back and forth, getting a little confused and so forth. I cut right to the chase. If something is wrong, it’s wrong. We had slaves in this country for some time. It was wrong. Then you had the Dred Scott decision and yet the Civil War. Then you had the 13 14/15 Amendments. Dred Scott decision was an abomination. It basically upheld slavery, to put it in a few words. The Civil War had to be fought to undo that decision, among other things. And then the legislature, our Congress. Wanted to enshrine first in the law, then in the Constitution. The outcome of the Civil War, that blacks were now free. They were to be treated as equals. They were to have due process. That they were full citizens of the United States, and that goes for their children and that goes for their future children. Period. This whole thing about jurisdiction thereof. Meant anybody. Particularly in this case, blacks, former slaves, their children, their future children who are in the United States under the authority of the United States, meaning the political authority of the United States that this amendment applied to. That they were citizens automatically. No debate. Constitutional ized after the Civil War. The Civil War was fought to keep the country united and to end slavery, not to open the borders to immigrants again. That wasn’t even in their thinking. So. For slaves, many of whom have been here for generations and their children. This was for you. This was for them. It was not for. Modern day Chinese citizens should come into the United States and give birth, and then their child is an American citizen. Then they go back to China, 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 just justify it seriously. And if they now constitutional ise birthright citizenship? Well, I don’t see how we 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. His name is cocky. No, nothing. Hold on. I’ll get his name. Give me one second. Count the five. And it doesn’t even matter without L.A.. Hoenig, legal analyst. He was a prosecutor. Well, he must know everything. He knows nothing. And so you’ve got lawyers being lawyers, judges being judges. And if they’re not originalists or textualist. And you have a mess. You basically have activist lawyers in in black robes. We have a decision in the late 1800s. Involving Chinese individuals. You have very racist laws. Laws that were passed at that time. And you had a a child born in the United States of a naturalized citizen. There’s a Chinese couple and one who was not. And without getting into the weeds, the court ruled that that. That that baby is an American citizen. We’re not talking about illegal aliens. We’re not even talking about illegal aliens. But even that decision, in my view, wasn’t. Wasn’t ruled accurately. But putting that aside. Illegal aliens. Come into the country. That means. That even though they’re being raised in China or being raised. In Qatar are being raised. Wherever they’re being raised, they can vote in the United States. And they can serve in our military if we draft them. So if you’re coming to China, you want them to serve in our military, don’t you, Mr. British? You have all the rights and benefits of any United States citizen. This is suicide. Now, I’ll have more to say when we return.

Segment 2

Now think about some. Let’s see. Even pretend I mean, pretend that some of these justices, the ACLU lawyer and the rest of them. All right. That jurisdiction means jurisdiction in the sense of physical jurisdiction. Which of course is ridiculous, but physical jurisdiction. Even then this any raise your hand. Does anybody believe. That back then, let alone today. That would mean if somebody comes into the country illegally and confers jurisdiction on themselves illegally. Cross the border to our jurisdiction. Now you’re here illegally. You can’t claim that I’m here physically. Jurisdiction. She has a child in a week and then that child is an American citizen under the 14th Amendment because she’s in the jurisdiction of the United States. So she’s conferring jurisdiction on herself by being here illegally. And then that baby is an American citizen because we recognized that she conferred jurisdiction on herself illegally. You see the insanity of this everywhere you look at it. It’s ridiculous. I’ll be right back.

Segment 3

So the Democrats violate the immigration laws left and right with a federal judge that says, well, you cannot deport the people who are here illegally, even though the Democrats under Biden violated their importation. You ever heard anything like this? Then the Democrats import tens of millions of illegal aliens in violation of federal immigration law. And we’re told if they have children, that those children are U.S. citizens. Now. It’s utterly suicidal and irrational. All of this. And it was never intended in the first place. Never. Not once. What I want to do here. See if we still have it here. Actually, Mr. Producer, let us go to Cut 21. Cut 21 where we have Harry Reid. No, no, that’s not it. Do we not have the Harry Reid? Well, what cut is it? All right, Well, let’s go to Cut 18, please. Mr. Reduce or go ahead. If making it easy to be an illegal alien is enough. How about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No, sir. No sane country would do that. Right. Guess again if you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee of full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that’s a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in country county run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers? Just when the American people think nothing can be more absurd than the way we deal or rather don’t deal with illegal immigration. They discover that we have a political asylum system that would qualify us for the. For Senator Proxmire. Golden Fleece Award a thousand times over. I don’t know why he didn’t make this award. He should have. Okay, so that’s 1973. And then, of course, the Democrats realized, hey. Where to get on this bandwagon. Why are we fighting this? We can turn these people in. The Democrats. We can turn these people into Democrats. And so they they’ve never looked back. Dianne Feinstein, also 1993, cut 19, go. Should you have a system where people can come to this country, even if they’re well-to-do, get on Medicaid and give birth to a baby and then go back? The answer is no. And we know that Medicaid laws are being used and abused to do just this in the state of California. I’d like to see that stopped about 13% of the California prison population costing close to $300 million a year are illegal aliens. I’ve had judges in Los Angeles and Orange County tell me one half of their criminal dockets are illegal aliens. Presently, a convicted illegal alien has the option serving their sentence in California or being returned to their country of origin. I think that option ought to be removed. Democrats used to stand for enforcing immigration laws. Clearly not anymore. And as we’ve changed the demographics of the country, we’ve changed the demographics of Congress. So you actually have individuals in Congress now who feel they represent illegal aliens and in many cases, they have significant populations of illegal aliens in their district. And you might say, well, they’re not supposed to vote. Well, that may be true, but because of the census. These representatives want to make sure that the people in their district, whether it’s 30, 40, 50% illegal aliens, are treated as citizens and get all the benefits that citizens get. And by all means, we should not have a secure border so they can muscle up their districts. Now, this from yesterday. We’re going to go to Cut 11. Mr. Producer, we have Solicitor General John Sauer is quite good. And then you’ll see how ridiculous the chief. Justice of the United States sounds and how how he’s looking for a way out. Carl Levin, go. You obviously put a lot of weight on subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky. You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships. And then you expand it to the whole class of illegal aliens are here in the country. I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group. Let me help you out, Mr. Chief Justice. Forget about the examples of you. Find the quirky, even though they’re relevant. Forget about the examples. Why don’t you just tell us? Who said in 1866, 1867. 1868. Anything about the children of illegal aliens becoming United States citizens? That’s your interpretation of the jurisdiction thereof. Well, show me who held that interpretation back then. Just once. Once. If you find these examples quirky, the reason he gave you those examples. They’re not quirky. You might say that they they only deal with a small number of people. That’s perfectly fine. But the reason they’re relevant is, well, why is there an exception? Why do we recognize that children of diplomats in the United States. When they had those children in the United States, not citizens, they would be automatically citizens. If somebody coming across the border is an illegal alien and they have a child and they’re automatically a citizen, you can’t deny them citizenship, right, no matter what a foreign country says. And so you literally have babies being born in the United States of illegal aliens who are citizens in two countries. In the United States. And then you go back to China and they treat them as citizens do. What about that, Mr. Chief Justice? It doesn’t matter. This is where his head is. He wants to consider constitutional his birthright citizenship. Go ahead, please. Idiosyncratic examples. There are those sort of narrow exceptions for ambassador, foreign public ships, tribal, India’s enormous one that they were very focused on in the debates as well. But what I do is I invite the court to look at the intervening step, which is the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. And they are they didn’t say subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There it says, not subject to any foreign power. Now, if you go back to Blackstone, in Calvin’s case, they say it does not matter if you are subject to any foreign power. If you are born in the king’s domains, you have this infeasible duty of allegiance to the king at any time. So there’s a clear repudiation in the Civil Rights Act, a civil right, and you don’t even have to go back to Blackstone or anything of the sort. It’s just common understanding of the language and its application at the time. That’s all. And Roberts knows this when he used to Stafford the Justice Department during the Reagan administration before I got there, too, the prior attorney general, he used to write memos on this stuff. He was a bomb thrower. But now he’s the chief justice of the United States and he’s been an. Can you imagine what The New York Times would say? Can you imagine what she and CNN’s legal analyst would say? Can you imagine what all the professors would say and so forth? If the chief justice of the United States applied the Constitution the damn way it’s supposed to be applied. Cat 12, please go. Based on Chinese media reports, there are 500 500 birth tourism companies in the People’s Republic of China, whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to to that nation. Having said all that, you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us. I think it’s I quote Justice Scalia said that that’s probably has no impact. Now, that’s crazy. Coney Barrett had said at another point. Well, how are you going to prove in ten and every single case you’re going have a due process hearing and so forth? Well, you understand that, of course, Justice Barrett. But that has no bearing on the constitutional issue at stake here, Right? And so Roberts wants to be able to say, well, you heard him. I don’t care if it means a billion people coming into this country that has no bearing on the Constitution. And then again, I take him back where he doesn’t want to go. You have nothing zero to support your position. You have absolutely nothing. You have no. Historical statement by any of the authors, any of the top debaters, whether it’s the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or this amendment, the 14th Amendment, you have nothing you can look at even. The state ratification come when you have nothing. You have zero. Nothing. We have everything. The reason that Act was passed in 1866, the reason they came up with the 14th Amendment. You have nothing. All right. We’re going to take a short break and I’m going to pick up where I left off on this birthright citizenship fiasco that I think is going to be rammed down our throats. We’ll be right back.

Segment 4

All right, let’s keep at it. Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas are the two greatest justices, and there’s a reason for it. They don’t play games. Here’s Clarence Thomas to Solicitor General John Sauer with John Roberts during the birthright citizenship case yesterday. Cut 13. Go. General, you’re getting a lot of questions about immigration. And they hearken back, of course, to citizenship, which is defined in or set out in the 14th Amendment. How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration? Nothing. Go ahead. I think that the principal focus of those debates has to do really not with immigrants, but with Indian tribes. I mean, obviously, the main goal, that one pervading purpose of this court set in the slaughterhouse cases was to establish citizenship for this guy. But he’s a little let’s slow down. I like this guy, but he’s a little verbose. The answer is nothing. Nothing. Go ahead. Concerned about the problem of something that they all accepted as a given, which is that the children, the tribal Indians, are not within the role of birthright citizenship. So I think that’s what they focus and we draw an analogy to that, to the issue of temporary soldiers. And then but there are mentions of temporary, so adjourning multiple places in the congressional debates. And all of those comments go one after a second place. The answer is immigration was not the focus. Go ahead. And and there was Justice Sotomayor brought up along King Ark. There was no question in that case that that about domicile was there? I disagree. The court says at the very beginning of its opinion, here are the accepted facts. These are lawfully domiciled here. When it states the question presented, it talks about domicile. When it recites the legal principle of page 693, it says domicile three times in a page seven or five. At the end of the opinion says, Here’s the single question we decided. We decided that Chinese immigrants with a permanent domicile place, that’s not as point. That’s not his point. His point is, let’s get right to the chase. This had nothing to do with immigration. It had to do with free freed black slaves and their children. That’s his point. The domicile issue gets back to immigration, and I understand why the solicitor general needs to make the fight on that because of what some of these justices and what the ACLU is trying to turn this into. But Clarence Thomas is saying, okay, got it. But. That wasn’t really the issue at the time, was it? Go ahead. All right. That’s all of it. So there’s Clarence Thomas. Smarter than the average justice. When we come back after the hour, because I can’t do it justice now. I’m going to play one or two of these kid TAJAI Brown Jackson clips. Because they’re very frustrating to me. This is somebody who really shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court. There’s one of two things going on here. She’s not that bright. And I don’t really think that’s the case. But she is a bomb thrower. She shouldn’t be anywhere near a courtroom unless she’s an advocate. And so they she sits there and she doesn’t even pretend. To try and be an objective. Adjudicator of facts and law. She’s in there jazz muscle, in a way, trying to make arguments for the ACLU, trying to make arguments for the side she agrees with. She doesn’t even have enough sense to just save that for the written decision. I think this is why Kagan and even Sotomayor are getting annoyed with her. Sotomayor. I believe it was maybe Kagan in a footnote in a recent opinion, all but said as much. Barrett. No hard core constitutionalist. She even though she’ll remind you she taught constitutional law, had a constitutional law professor. I had dozens of them. That is law professors, a handful of constitutional law professors. So what? Some were good, some were bad, some were partisan, some weren’t, some radiological, some weren’t. So it doesn’t matter what they taught. But it does matter how you view your job as a judge or a justice. The fact of the matter is, Jackson views her job. As an advocate for the left or an advocate for the Democrats. That’s it. She doesn’t even make any bones about it. And so I want to get into that a little bit next hour because this is a big problem. And that’s exactly why Biden chose her and why. They put her on the bench. Could. She’s 100% reliable. Excuse me. And look, Kagan and Sotomayor, that threesome is very reliable, 99.9% of the time for the left and for the Democrats. But you still have to have a colorable argument. But she has none, Jackson. She just throws bombs. That’s what she does.