2. Congress has the power to define what it means to be born in the United States “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
3. While current law contains no such restriction, Congress could pass a law defining what it means to be born in the United States “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” excluding prospectively from birthright citizenship individuals born in the U.S. to illegal aliens.
4. This is an idea that has attracted lawmakers of both political parties.
5. In fact, one of the first bills (at least in recent memory) that attempted to impose statutory limits on automatic birthright citizenship was introduced in 1993 by then-Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, who later became the Democrats’ leader in the Senate.
6. Senator Reid’s bill was called the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993. Title X of that bill would have limited automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to mothers who were either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents at the time.
7. The fact that federal law doesn’t currently impose such a restriction doesn’t mean that it couldn’t, and that’s why Senator Harry Reid proposed that change.
8. Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment limits Congress’s ability to enact legislation limiting birthright citizenship along the lines of what Senator Harry Reid proposed in 1993.
9. Those who suggest Congress is somehow powerless to limit birthright citizenship ignore important constitutional text giving Congress power define who among those “born in the United States” is born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
10. It bothers me that @MeetThePress, long revered as America’s leading Sunday political news program, has become so one-sided.
@MeetThePress 11. In this instance, @MeetThePress seems to try to render a debatable matter beyond debate by selectively omitting key words from the Constitution, making it appear incorrectly that the Fourteenth Amendment proscribes any and all restrictions on birthright citizenship.
@MeetThePress 12. Please follow if you’d like to see more posts like this one.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵1. In a meeting today with @elonmusk, @vivekgramaswamy, & @speakerjohnson, Elon & Vivek referred to the fact that, because unelected bureaucrats now make most federal law & control much of our economy, we’ve been stripped of the benefits of a constitutional republic.
2. As @vivekgramaswamy noted, the need for Americans to demand accountability from their own government is precisely why we fought—and mercifully won—the American Revolution. That got me thinking ….
3. Throughout Anglo-American history, we’ve seen a major upheaval every 75-90 years. It’s almost like clockwork!
🧵🚨 1. Of all the deceptive sales techniques the U.S. government has used on the American people, one of them—the Social Security Act—gets far too little attention. Buckle up because this is a wild ride.
2. In 1935, the American people were sold a bill of goods. They were told, “Pay into this system, and it'll be YOUR money for retirement.” Sounds great, right?
3. But here's where it gets juicy, in a really ugly way. Two years later, when the Supreme Court was considering the constitutionality of the Social Security Act, the government did a complete 180.
🧵 1. Progressives love to say “let’s keep politics out of this”
What they really mean is “let’s make sure the people have no say in this”
2. Progressives propose insulating key decisions from politics when they want government “experts” to make decisions that are beyond the power of the people to oversee, or even impact
3. This approach creates a degree of un-reviewable tyranny that would make King George III green with envy
🧵1. Tonight I hosted & moderated a forum for GOP senators, giving my colleagues a chance to hear from each of the three candidates running to replace McConnell. After hearing from each candidate, I’ve decided to support Rick Scott. Here are my takeaways:
2. As I’ve been saying for months, the Senate is supposed to be “the world’s greatest deliberative body,” but it has ceased to function as such in recent years, as majority leaders from both political parties have consolidated power at the expense of nearly every other senator.
3. Senators are supposed to have ample opportunity to debate, discuss, and amend important legislation, and the Senate rules offer important procedural protections to ensure such outcomes. Those rules have been short-circuited by leaders of both parties, empowering what I sometimes describe (in the current configuration of Congress) as “The Law Firm of Schumer, McConnell, Johnson, & Jeffries,” or simply “The Firm.”
🧵 1. Have you ever wondered why reporters don’t seem to hesitate to say and repeat things about Donald Trump that simply aren’t true—as if they have no fear of defamation liability?
2. This sort of thing happens because the Supreme Court, about 60 years ago, invented a First Amendment doctrine that protects the media from defamation liability, at least in lawsuits brought by public figure
3. If you’re wondering which words in the First Amendment tell reporters they are free to defame activists, politicians, and other public figures without fear of getting sued, you’re on the right track