BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DIRECTLY IMPACTS THE SECOND AMENDMENT
How Will the Roberts Court Decide Trump vs. Barbara?
Trump has asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prevail on the U.S. Supreme Court to correct the horrible injustice that the incorrigibly corrupt and deceitful Biden Administration has exacted on the American people. The case is Trump vs. Barbara, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 4487; 223 L. Ed. 2d 270; 94 U.S.L.W. 3175; 2025 LX 556974; 146 S. Ct. 879; 2025 WL 3493157.
The Press has dubbed Trump vs. Barbara, “The Birthright Citizenship Case.”
The Supreme Court has granted review on December 5, 2025. Oral argument is scheduled for April 1, 2026.
A decision is expected in early Summer.
The importance of this case to the future well-being of a Free Republic and to our Bill of Rights, especially the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, cannot be overstated.
Trump vs. Barbara brings to bear a matter that the Court has spent little time considering——
What does it mean to be an American? That raises the issue of the nature of our National (American) Character, our Nation’s Ethos. And the preservation of that National Character is a matter of tremendous importance to the future of a Free Constitutional Republic, to the sovereignty of the American people and to the sanctity of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
The American Ethos is bound inextricably to the concept of the need for a well-armed citizenry, an abhorrence of State Tyranny, a justifiable suspicion of Government Usurpation of Power, and to the Sovereignty of the American People (“The Common Man”) over all Government.
An overexpansive review of what it means to be an “American” in a Land now inundated with tens of millions of aliens dilutes the import of the term ‘American’ and the importance of inculcation of our Nation’s heritage and core values. See e.g. the article, titled “Foreign-Born Number and Share of U.S. Population at All-Time Highs in January 2025”, published, March 12, 2025, by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).
The government’s January 2025 Current Population Survey (CPS) shows the foreign-born or immigrant population (legal and illegal together) hit 53.3 million and 15.8 percent of the total U.S. population in January 2025 — both new record highs. The January CPS is the first government survey to be adjusted to better reflect the recent surge in illegal immigrants. Unlike border statistics, the CPS measures the number of immigrants in the country, which is what actually determines their impact on society. Without adjusting for those missed by the survey, we estimate illegal immigrants accounted for 5.4 million or two-thirds of the 8.3 million growth in the foreign-born population since President Biden took office in January 2021. America has entered uncharted territory on immigration, with significant implications for taxpayers, the labor market, and our ability to assimilate so many people [emphasis our own].”
Noncitizens, whether here legally or illegally, are not Americans in a legal, logical, or cultural sense.
They are not part of the American community. Many do not share our values and love of Country. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, “Response to United Federation of Teachers Open Borders Take on Who Is American,” published in “Ammoland Shooting Sports News” on June 27, 2017.
Pregnant illegal alien women and other foreign-born women, i.e., those here legally but under a temporary tourist visa (colloquially ascribed as “Birthright Tourism”) have an ulterior motive: To birth a child here who, under a misconceived, misunderstood concept of United States citizenship, is presumed to have an adequate nexus to this Country by virtue of birth on our soil alone (where in fact there is no legally legitimate nexus between the alien mother and child, on the one hand, and our Country, on the other).
The deceit behind the mother’s action should itself be of concern to our Courts and to our legislators. And that deceit should not be awarded.
Illegal alien women who transgressed our laws by crossing our National territorial borders should not be awarded for their crime. That act serves only to compound the awful negative impact that potentially millions of destitute or near-destitute children have on the economic well-being of our Nation.
And then there is the absurdity of presumptuously, pretentiously deeming such offspring of illegal aliens to be considered U.S. citizens, and in failing to account for the negative social, political, legal, and philosophical ramifications of and fallout emanating from this—endangering the future of a Nation conceived by and crafted by the framers as a Free Constitutional Republic.
These are major problems attendant to citizenship grounded on birth of a child within America’s territorial borders, without any consideration given to the status of and the illicit intention of the birth mother having ventured into our Country illegally for the singular purpose of giving birth to a child on our soil or having ventured onto our Country, deceitfully, through acquisition of a temporary tourist visa, for the principal purpose of giving birth to a child, who will automatically be considered a U.S. Citizen.
These people (neither mother nor child) can legitimately claim or argue allegiance to the United States but are erroneously treated by several academicians (scholars of history and legal scholars), along with all Democrat Party Progressive-Marxist Politicians, as owing allegiance to the United States by the simple expedient of being on our soil.
But these academicians and politicians hold ideas that, from both a historical and legal standpoint, are simply wrong.
They fall prey to a common misinterpretation of the crucial phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” as that phrase appears in the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.
See e.g. an October 30, 2018 article titled, “Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment,” by Hans A. von Spakovsky, published by the Heritage Foundation.
What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.
Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.”
See also the article titled, “There Is No Birthright Citizenship for Children Born of Aliens within the United States,” by Richard Epstein, published on May 16, 2025, in Civitas Institute.
President Trump recognizes—unlike recent past Presidents—the danger that misconceptions of ‘Citizen of the United States’ and ‘American’ (and ‘American Citizen’) present for the continued well-being of an independent, sovereign Nation-State and a truly Free Constitutional Republic.
Take a look at President Trump’s comprehensive, well-grounded, sober, and conscientious, and well thought out "Executive Order 14160—Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship January 20, 2025.”
“Birthright Citizenship” is a shorthand descriptor for the false belief that any person born on U.S. soil is automatically a “U.S. citizen” (apart from the children of parents of diplomats or children of parents whom the U.S. is at war with because those people owe allegiance to another sovereign).
But wherefrom comes the idea that a child dropped on our soil by a pregnant woman, who is not a diplomat or a citizen of a foreign power with whom America is at war, is an American citizen?
Why are the children born of some classes of noncitizens considered citizens of the United States, but not those of others?
Where did the notion arise, and what is the legal and logical basis for presuming a child born on our soil by a diplomat of a foreign nation or child of a woman who is a citizen of a nation whom our Country is at war with is not deemed to be a citizen of the United States grounded on the idea that such people, mother and child, do not owe allegiance to our Sovereign Nation, but, conversely, that a child born on U.S. soil by any other pregnant alien female is an American citizen because the child is said to owe allegiance to the United States.
What is the logic in this distinction?
To say that some classes of alien females giving birth to children on our soil create U.S. citizens who thereby do owe allegiance to the United States, notwithstanding that the birthing mother does not owe allegiance to our Sovereign Nation, but that some other classes of alien females giving birth to children on our soil do not create U.S. citizens since those children do not and cannot owe allegiance to our Sovereign Nation precisely because the birthing mother is herself a citizen of another Sovereign Power, and, so, cannot owe allegiance to the United States, makes no logical sense.
To draw a distinction between classes of aliens, predicated on a perfunctory assertion in our Nation’s law is wholly arbitrary, but hardly innocuous.
Plainly, no child, born on our soil whose parents are not citizens of the United States, can endow citizenship status on a child they give birth to on our Nation’s soil. To hold otherwise is irrational and logically fatuous. And, from a pragmatic standpoint, has profound implications for the future social, political, economic, ideological, and cultural well-being of our Country.
U.S. immigration law, grounded on “Birthright Citizenship” lacks a concrete Constitutional and Statutory foundation. This is all ad hoc, and ad hoc distinctions do not provide a sound basis upon which to ground our Nation’s immigration and naturalization laws.
Ad hoc constructions merely beg the question why some classes of alien mothers giving birth to children on our soil are said to create U.S. citizens simply by that act alone, while other classes of alien mothers do not create U.S. citizens who they drop on our soil.
In both instances the status of the alien mother stays the same. They remain non-citizens. This is and ought to be the sole defining factor on how the offspring, born on our soil, must also be treated.
The problem we face today, that gives rise to Trump vs. Barbara, arises from and is bound to a pseudo concept that, unfortunately, pervades this Nation’s immigration laws and jurisprudence and has continued to pervade this Nation’s immigration laws and our Nation’s immigration jurisprudence. But, past practice should not be a defining factor if that past practice is either legally wrong or logically inconsistent and incoherent. And that is true in matters involving this concept of “Birthright Citizenship.”
And the problem is not of theoretical concern. It has real-world impact and profoundly disturbing and frightening implications for the well-being of our Nation, and for the persistence of a truly Free Constitutional Republic, particularly at this critical moment in time.
The continued existence of our Free Constitutional Republic rests upon how the U.S. Supreme Court decides Trump vs. Barbara, with oral argument in just a few days, with a decision expected in June 2026.
The procedural background for the present lawsuit, Trump vs. Barbara, rests on an unjustified attack by a class of illegal aliens on President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14,160. See Doe vs. Trump, 157 F.4th 36 (1st Cir. 2025).
The case came to the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition filed by the U.S. President contesting the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, affirming a decision of a lower Federal District Court that had issued an injunction in favor of the children of illegal aliens alleging that the President’s Executive Order (EO) is illegal.
The First Circuit, providing a summary of the procedural history of the case, said, in substantial part,
The complaint alleges that the EO violates (1) the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and (2) the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. It also alleges that the EO violates (1) § 1401(a) and (2) the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706. For relief, the complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the EO is unlawful . . . and a preliminary and permanent injunction barring the defendants from enforcing or "carrying out [the EO's] directive[s]."
A day later, on January 21, 2025, a group of states and others — collectively, the State-Plaintiffs — filed a suit of their own in the same District Court to challenge the EO. . . .
The State-Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the EO violates the (1) Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and (2) Separation of Powers doctrine. It also alleges that the EO violates (1) § 1401(a) and (2) the APA. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the EO is unlawful in these respects and that "actions taken by Defendant agencies to implement or enforce the [EO] violate the [APA]." It also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction barring the Government from enforcing or implementing the EO. Finally, the complaint requests that the District Court "[v]acate any actions taken by Defendant agencies to implement or enforce the [EO]."
The District Court granted both sets of plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions. . . . It did so after concluding that the plaintiffs in both cases were "exceedingly likely" to succeed on their Citizenship Clause and § 1401(a) claims. . . .
The [U.S.] Government moved in the [U.S.] Supreme Court for a partial stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction in the State-Plaintiffs' case, as well as in two out-of-circuit cases in which district courts had issued similar preliminary injunctions. See Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 837-38, 145 S. Ct. 2540, 222 L. Ed. 2d 930 (2025).
The Government argued that some of the plaintiffs in this group of cases — including the State-Plaintiffs here — lacked Article III and third-party standing. It also argued that each of the district courts — and thus the District Court here — erred in issuing a "universal injunction."
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court held that universal injunctions, insofar as they provide relief to non-parties, "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." The Supreme Court explained, however, that "the equitable tradition has long embraced the rule that courts generally 'may administer complete relief between the parties.'" It further explained that "the complete-relief inquiry is more complicated" in the State-Plaintiffs' case "because the relevant injunction does not purport to directly benefit nonparties." Indeed, the Supreme Court noted that in the State-Plaintiffs' case, the District Court had specifically "decided that a universal injunction was necessary to provide the States themselves with complete relief."
After summarizing the competing arguments about whether a universal injunction was necessary to provide "complete relief" to the State-Plaintiffs and noting two alternative and narrower preliminary injunctions that the Government proposed, the Supreme Court declined to take up the "arguments in the first instance." The Court "le[ft] it to" the "lower courts" to "determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate." Ultimately, the Court granted the "Government's applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions . . ., but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."
Thereafter, in the State-Plaintiffs' case, the Government moved in our Court to be permitted to provide supplemental briefing as to CASA's effect on the pending appeal. Doe v. Trump, 142 F.4th 109 (1st Cir. 2025). We denied the motion. But, while retaining jurisdiction over the appeal, we "remanded to the District Court for the limited purposes" of "enabling the District Court to consider the bearing, if any, of [the Supreme Court's] guidance in CASA on the scope of the preliminary injunction," "to address any arguments that the parties may advance with respect to what grounds may now be asserted regarding the injunction's scope," and "to act accordingly."
On July 25, 2025, the District Court determined that "no workable, narrower alternative to the injunction issued originally would provide complete relief to the" State-Plaintiffs. The District Court therefore "decline[d] to modify [its preliminary] injunction."
On August 1, 2025, we heard oral argument in the appeal of the preliminary injunctions in the Doe-Plaintiffs' and State-Plaintiffs' cases. We also heard oral argument, at that time, in the appeal of a similar preliminary injunction that had been issued by the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire on February 11, 2025, in favor of three other immigrant-focused nonprofit organizations [citations omitted here and there].
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found in favor of the aliens, affirming a decision of the lower District Court that issued a nationwide injunction preventing Trump from enforcing his Executive Order.
The President thereupon filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
In the Question Presented for Review section of the Petition, the DOJ, on behalf of Trump, says,
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that those “born * in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are U.S. citizens. . . . The Clause was adopted to confer citizenship on the newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which restores the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause and provides. . . that children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth” [emphasis our own].
See the President’s Executive Order, Petitioner’s full Brief on this case, and the Court’s docket, which includes the briefs of amici curiae.
Working along with Congressional Democrat Marxist-Socialists, Biden’s people opened the floodgates. Millions of unvetted aliens poured into our Country.
Not an insignificant number included pregnant women, set on giving birth to their offspring on American soil.
They knew their children would automatically become citizens and that, once a child attained the age of 21, he could then sponsor his parents for a “green card.”
A longstanding but controversial shibboleth says the child is presumptively a U.S. citizen under an anachronistic and archaic monarchic doctrine called “Jus Soli” (Right of Soil) grounded on old English Common Law.
In 1898, the Supreme Court applied that English Common Law Canon to American Law in the case United States vs. Kim Wong Ark.
The decision wasn’t unanimous.
Both Chief Justice Fuller and Associate Justice Harlan wrote a comprehensive, vigorous dissent.
Their legal and logical reasoning is insightful, and their intuitive understanding of what such a catastrophic decision would have, prescient. The Chief Justice and Associate Justice Harlan, likely had serious misgivings on the well-being of and the very future of the Nation continuing to exist as a Free Constitutional Republic decades to come, if the Kim Wong Ark majority opinion were not reversed at some point in the future. And 128 years later, with a Free Constitutional Republic beginning to fray, through an influx of tens of millions of illegal aliens residing in our Country—many of whom are, at the moment treated as “Citizens of the U.S.,” born on U.S. soil by illegal alien mothers or by alien mothers that have held or presently hold valid or invalid temporary tourist visas (and many more illegal alien DACA babies, who, now adults, have given birth to hundreds of thousands babies on our soil)—our Nation is faced with a serious reckoning.
Citizenship Jus Soli has no legal, logical, or historical basis in our Country. And most modern nations do not accept that standard or have otherwise done away with it.
One Country is Great Britain.
It is curious the British—whose common law Jus Soli citizenship standard the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court majority appealed to in its Kim Wong Ark ruling that Jus Soli citizenship applies in the U.S.— abolished citizenship via Jus Soli on January 1, 1983, adopting the more sensible citizenship Jus Sanguinis (“Right of Blood”) standard that most nations follow today. The U.S. did not strike that standard down, even, with clear evidence of the harm that it has caused this Country, especially in the last two decades. The U.S. Supreme Court has a chance to correct that long-standing error of law and logic, now.
The legal and logical rationale for maintaining the feudal-era concept of allegiance to the King, predicated solely on birth within the Realm, is both faulty and wrong-headed, if not absurd. It may have made sense in a monarchic realm centuries ago, but it never made sense here, in the U.S. Four our Nation was never a monarchy and the Framers of our Constitution found the notion of fashioning a monarchic governmental structure for the new nation repugnant—especially after having thrown off the yoke of monarchic, despotic rule through the unparalleled, if improbable, success of America’s first Patriots, in the American Revolution.
The Nation’s Founders crafted the nascent United States as a “Free Constitutional Republic.”
The practical impact of credence to Jus Soli citizenship on our Nation has not only been harmful but, on many indices, effects have been disastrous. From a philosophical standpoint, Jus Soli citizenship in a Free Republic is ludicrous to contemplate.
And, yet, it continues to survive to our ruin. That must change.
Unlike Feudal England, our Free Constitutional Republic does not have and never has had any resemblance to a Monarchy, be it a “Constitutional Monarchy” or an “Absolute Monarchy.”
Peasants and serfs born in the King’s Realm in Feudal England weren’t “Citizens” in the modern sense anyway. Such people, in those days, were “Subjects” of the King, having no rights. Born in the King’s Realm meant that the peasant or serf (a subject of the King) automatically owed allegiance to the King. Even today, in Britain, and in any country where the government operates as a monarchy, the people are subjects of the realm, not citizens in the truest sense.
Tens of millions of illegal aliens have now infested our Country. And few, if any, have knowledge of governmental frameworks, nor our laws. They have no understanding of, nor appreciation for our Constitution, our Fundamental, Unalienable, Eternal Rights and Liberties, our History, Heritage and Traditions, and our core beliefs.
Having no respect for our Nation’s geographical borders or for our laws, they are inveterate criminals.
Moreover, they are a financial burden to us, costing the American taxpayer billions of dollars every year.
Lastly, such “citizens” born of criminal illegals would elect people into government office whose aim is to destroy our Nation from within. Most sanctuary states allow these people to vote in their local and state elections—leading to societal instability, financial ruin, and moral decay.
Such pseudo citizens dropped on our soil by illegal aliens and manipulated by scurrilous demagogues, would vote people into office whose aim is to destroy our Nation from within, and given enough time, this is inevitable.
To effectuate that aim, Democrats (Marxist-Socialists) and their symbiotic Fake-News Press constantly attack our Nation’s Bill of Rights, especially civilian citizen possession of firearms.
The armed citizenry is Democrats main concern. They know that the armed citizenry is the bulwark of a Free State. But, Democrats have no wish to preserve a Free State. Their agenda is directed to maximize control over the entire population. The end goal is to convert a Free Republic into a Totalitarian Collectivist State.
Hence, Democrats are drawing our Country ever closer toward a tyranny. They are accomplishing that with the avid assistance of millions of unassimilable aliens, along with a significant number of home-bred American Marxist-Socialist cultists.
Outside threats to a Free Republic also abound.
CCP China is one of those dangerous threats that seek exert control over our Nation by sending over substantial numbers of pregnant women, all members of China’s Communist Party, who give birth to their children on U.S. soil, making them U.S. citizens by virtue of birth Jus Soli.
Those babies are then brought back to China where they are systematically inculcated with Chinese ideology.
These children, 750,000 to 1.5 million de jure U.S. citizens by virtue of birth in the U.S. (“Manchurian Candidates,”) return here, when they are old enough to vote.
These “U.S. Citizens” support the Chinese Communist Party and the aims of the Chinese Government in myriad ways.
The ultimate aim is to take over control of the U.S. Government and the states, from within, on behalf of their CCP sponsors. That is the secret plan.
Mexico presents a similar problem for our Country.
But, many Americans are blind to the myriad threats posed to our Nation or otherwise are psychologically conditioned to see the annihilation of our Republic as a good thing, a worthy aim.
How important is the armed citizenry to a Free State?
Just consider the plight of the Iranian people today.
The liberal media doesn’t posit why Iranians haven’t risen up against the savage, hateful Theocratic Islamic regime, given the massive, devastating airpower that the U.S. and Israel brought to bear against it. The reason is plain but the Press suppresses it—having no wish to mention it: Iranians have no firearms.
The Theocratic Dictatorship doesn’t allow ordinary people to possess firearms, lest they depose the Tyrant.
Only an armed citizenry can effectively defeat a tyrannical regime. That is axiomatic as our Founders knew.
They know an insurgency of tens of millions of aliens can be mobilized to achieve their endgame, one that armed Americans would never accept, nor tolerate, nor abide. Thus, Democrats dare not clearly enunciate their objectives——The eradication of the Constitution, the rewriting of our history, the erasure of our heritage and core beliefs, the de facto elimination of the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment along with our other basic rights, and the dissolution of a Free Republic.
These aims are all part of the Democrat Marxist-Socialist agenda.
Those people and groups inside and outside Government that detest our Country look forward to a Court decision in their favor, one reaffirming, embellishing on, and making irrefutable an age-old, outmoded Supreme Court ruling, grounded on an absurd thesis and illogical reasoning: Kim Wong Ark.
Such a decision would mark our slide toward oblivion. The die would be cast with the High Court’s own imprimatur as the Nation wends its way inexorably and inevitably toward tyranny. That would be both ironic and insufferable.
This is why a correct decision in the upcoming Trump vs. Barbara is as vital to the Security of a Free State as is positive decisions in straightforward major Second Amendment case.
But Roberts shuns reviewing major cases with political implications for his legacy, despite claiming impartiality.
Recall, at Roberts’ urging, the Court perfunctorily denied review of two significant Second Amendment cases in 2025.
The first is Antonyuk vs. James. This case involves the New York Government’s blatant, hostile, and contemptuous act of defiance toward the Court’s rulings and reasoning in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen.
The second is Snope vs. Brown, coming out of Maryland. This case involves the State’s ban on civilian citizen possession of semiautomatic weapons—an act of subversion toward a finding in District of Columbia vs. Heller that weapons in common use plainly fall within the Second Amendment’s protection.
Why then did Chief Justice allow review of this Birthright Citizenship case given the decisive impact it would have on the Country, for good or ill?
Our guess is that, unlike the Second Amendment cases, Justice Roberts had to take up Trump vs. Barbara.
Political momentum existed for it, and most of the Justices likely wanted to hear the case.
Impetus for it also came from the President. And failure to grant review wouldn’t help the Court anyway, for the 128-year-old contentious Kim Wong Ark case would remain as presumptively legitimate in a Country confronted with millions of unassimilable illegal aliens and their offspring.
The Court has the opportunity now to correct this travesty.
Individuals born of illegal aliens or temporary visitors to our Country are not citizens of the United States. Trump is spot-on, right. See the article in The Heritage Foundation.
The Supreme Court must strike down Kim Wong Ark and protect the present and future viability of a Free Republic and its mainstay—the citizen army.
But will it do so?
If a majority of the Justices, including Roberts, reaffirms the 1898 case holding, then they have effectively signed the Nation’s death warrant, paving the way for dissolution of a Free Republic, and eradication of the citizen army by bureaucratic and legal fiat.
For, any child born on our soil, irrespective of the status of the parents, will be, by that fact alone, a U.S. citizen, with all the rights and liberties, appurtenant, thereupon voting for people who aim to eliminate those rights and liberties.
Insidiously, ruthless forces both inside and outside the Country who abhor this Free Republic would use our own laws against us, and the Supreme Court, with Roberts at the helm, would be their enabler—perhaps unwittingly, or perhaps, not.
This would mean some Justices utilized their tremendous Article III power not to protect the Constitution but to cause irrevocable harm to it. If that occurs, Congress should immediately draw up papers of impeachment against those Justices who betrayed us.