The Supreme Court struck down a 2025 executive order that sought to end birthright citizenship, jettisoning the definition of citizenship at the heart of the American Republic for almost 250 years.
Judgement makes no sense. What is the point of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" if its removal would make no difference to the interpretation.
Majority completely nullified the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
See this FAQ https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md to understand how the Majority went outside its precedents to attack the sovereinty of the United States and chart a course towards nuclear war (a nuclear version of the War of 1812)
On Truth Social [July 8, 2026], President Trump announced his intention to file a Petition for ReHearing, warning of the severe existential implications of the current ruling:
"This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision"
The core issue here is the dangerous legal and geopolitical precedent being set.
The Court's current trajectory is "Unconstitutionally Charting a Course for Nuclear War"—an escalation that should deeply concern anyone invested in constitutional limits and national security, regardless of their political alignment.
When partisan hostility blinds the judiciary to the broader consequences of its rulings, the stability of the entire country is placed at risk.
For a detailed breakdown of the constitutional and security implications of this
Much to digest in your article. The most shocking assertion by a Supreme Court justice is this:
"She (Jackson) reenforces the majority’s assumption that the Constitution lacks historical coherence by referencing the Reconstruction era as America’s “Second Founding.”' If the Constitution can be ignored in this case, the ramifications (as you state) are tremendous. I do not see how the 14th Amendment is applicable in this case. Wasn't the 14th Amendment about freed slaves?
Quote "I do not see how the 14th Amendment is applicable in this case. Wasn't the 14th Amendment about freed slaves?
Correct. The language "subject to the Jurisdiction" was intended to include the 4 Million black freemen, and to exclude the many Tribal-Indians who were Tribal-subjects (those not taxed or not domiciled outside of the Tribal Reservation); and also to exclude any other aliens that Congress or the President expressly or impliedly excepted from "the jurisdiction of the United States" (such as foreign merchants on ships in US ports, foreign embasadors, foreign military etc)
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
Just as the Supreme Court created legal gay marriage, legal and then illegal abortion, legal and then illegal DEI, all of this on split votes, it's clear that to go to the original focus of granting ex-slaves guarantee of citizenship would be quite within the Court's purview. Crucial issues changing our culture should be, like Brown vs. Board of Ed., unanimous. Indeed, what is the point of "subject to the jurisdiction," if its absence changes nothing?
Correct. The language "subject to the Jurisdiction" was intended to include the 4 Million black freemen, and to exclude the many Tribal-Indians who were Tribal-subjects (but not excluding Indians taxed or domiciled outside of the Tribal Reservation); and also to exclude any other aliens that Congress or the President expressly or impliedly excepted from "the jurisdiction of the United States" (such as foreign merchants on ships in US ports, foreign embasadors, foreign military etc)
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
Border security will now be the thing. For sure. It’s a shame because it might make us a less open and welcoming society, but the court has given the nation no obvious alternative now.
But, AI also generated this report citing the BIBLE as "explains [the] judiical philosophy :
[W]e can explore the objective, historical relationship between ethical principles—like the Golden Rule—and the development of international law, treaty interpretation, and the doctrine of comity.
The Golden Rule in the History of International Law
The ethical concept of reciprocity—treating other sovereign entities as one would wish to be treated—has been a foundational pillar of international law for centuries. Early legal theorists sought to ground the interactions of sovereign states in moral and natural law rather than mere power politics.
1. Natural Law and Hugo Grotius
Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), frequently regarded as the father of modern international law, argued in De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace) that a "Law of Nations" (jus gentium) exists, derived from natural law and mutual consent.
The Principle: Grotius posited that sovereign states, like individuals in a state of nature, are bound by moral duties. Chief among these is the rule of good faith (bona fides) and reciprocity.
Application: For treaties to function, states must act with the expectation that obligations are mutual. To demand a right from another sovereign while denying that same right to them violates the natural order and destabilizes peace.
2. Samuel von Pufendorf and Mutual Duty
Samuel von Pufendorf (1632–1694) expanded on these concepts by directly linking the duties of sovereigns to the natural equality of mankind. He argued that since all sovereigns are equal in the international arena, no single state can unilaterally impose its domestic will or legal frameworks onto another without consent. This is the secularized equivalent of the Golden Rule: sovereign equality requires mutual respect of jurisdictional boundaries.
3. The Legal Doctrine of Comity (Comitas Gentium)
In modern jurisprudence, the "Golden Rule" of international relations is formalized through the doctrine of comity.
Definition: As defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hilton v. Guyot (1895), comity is "neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other." It is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens.
The Mechanism: Comity prevents nations from overreaching their jurisdiction. For example, a nation respects the nationality and citizenship laws of another sovereign to ensure that its own citizenship laws are respected in return.
The Constitutional Debate: Judicial Formalism vs. Foreign Affairs Deference
The tension highlighted in your analysis—between rigid constitutional interpretation and the practical realities of foreign policy—is a central debate in American constitutional law.
The Case for Judicial Deference (The Political Question Doctrine)
Many legal scholars and advocates argue that the judiciary should exercise restraint when rulings intersect with foreign affairs, treaty negotiations, or geopolitical security.
The Argument: The Executive and Legislative branches (the political branches) are constitutionally vested with the power to conduct foreign relations, command the military, and negotiate treaties. Because the judiciary lacks the information, expertise, and diplomatic tools to manage international relations, courts have traditionally avoided interfering in matters that could embarrass the executive or complicate relations with foreign sovereigns (often cited under the political question doctrine established in Baker v. Carr).
Consequentialist Concerns: Proponents of this view argue that a "one-size-fits-all" domestic ruling that inadvertently disrupts international comity can have serious real-world consequences, limiting the President's ability to negotiate reciprocal agreements with foreign powers.
The Case for Judicial Formalism
Conversely, proponents of a strict formalist or originalist approach argue that the Supreme Court's primary duty is to interpret the Constitution as written, regardless of the potential diplomatic or geopolitical consequences.
The Argument: From this perspective, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the judiciary cannot alter its meaning to accommodate shifting foreign policy needs or executive convenience. If a constitutional provision (such as the Fourteenth Amendment) mandates a certain result, formalists argue that it is up to the political branches or the amendment process to change the law, not the courts.
Within the specific legal framework proposed in these writings, (the "Sovereign Express Waiver" Thesis of The Martial Terran https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md ) several core concepts are synthesized to challenge current birthright citizenship jurisprudence of Trump v. Barbara:
First, the thesis relies on the principle of Sovereign Express Waiver, which posits that the Executive branch possesses the inherent Article II authority to explicitly waive territorial jurisdiction over specific classes of foreign nationals, drawing precedent from the historical application of sovereign comity in The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon.
Second, it emphasizes Sovereign Reciprocity—referred to as the "Inter-National Golden Rule"—arguing that the United States must respect the nationality and jurisdictional boundaries of other sovereign states to maintain international comity and prevent geopolitical destabilization.
Finally, the thesis of The Martial Terran advocates for Consequentialist Realism, asserting that constitutional provisions must not be interpreted by the judiciary in a rigid, formalist manner that strips the political branches of the diplomatic and national security tools necessary to prevent catastrophic global conflict.
Judges Should Not ignore Reductio Ad Absurdum nor ignore Credible "Extinction-Level Risk" Ad Terrorem arguments (This seems to contradict the "Originalist" psychopathy?) https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md
Formally:
Based on the premises provided, the judicial philosophy reflected in these
arguments represents a form of Consequentialist Pragmatism combined with a
strict demand for Judicial Candor and Sovereign Prudentialism.
This philosophy stands in contrast to rigid, formalistic originalism, arguing
instead that the judiciary must be bound by truth, real-world consequences, and
the preservation of the state.
The completed list of this judicial philosophy’s core tenets includes:
1. Absolute Judicial Candor (Judges Should Not Lie)
- Principle: Courts must maintain strict factual, historical, and intellectual
honesty in their opinions.
- Rationale: Legal fictions, mischaracterizations of precedent, or deliberately
"misapprehending" dispositive facts to achieve a desired political or legal
outcome undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary and violate the basic duty
of the court.
2. Existential and Geopolitical Prudentialism (Judges Should Not Incite Geopolitical Conflict)
- Principle: The judiciary must not issue rulings that destabilize
international relations or escalate tensions between nuclear-armed sovereign
powers.
- Rationale: Legal interpretations do not exist in a vacuum. Judges must
recognize the foreign policy and national security implications of their
decisions, and that control over these matters are vested exclusively in the Political Branches, ensuring that judicial actions do not inadvertently trigger existential or military crises.
3. Consequentialist Realism (Judges Must Avoid Absurd or Catastrophic Outcomes)
- Principle: Courts must actively consider reductio ad absurdum (proof by
absurdity) and argumentum in terrorem (arguments warning of catastrophic
real-world consequences).
- Rationale: A rigid, dogmatic adherence to certain formalist or originalist
theories—especially when they produce absurd results or threaten the
stability of the republic—is rejected. This aligns with the classic legal
maxim that the Constitution is not a "suicide pact."
4. Primacy of Sovereign Self-Preservation
- Principle: The ultimate duty of constitutional interpretation is to preserve
the integrity, security, and sovereignty of the nation.
- Rationale: Legal doctrines regarding citizenship, jurisdiction, and national
boundaries must be interpreted in a way that allows the sovereign power
(Congress and the Executive) to protect the polity from external influence
and internal destabilization.
##################
# Generative AI Analysis reports:
An examination of the live contents of these four documents reveals a highly detailed, original legal-geopolitical theory[1][2][3][4].
The specific legal doctrine of a "Sovereign Express Waiver"—and its precise mechanical applications (such as the President waiving jurisdiction over an infant's corpus at the "exact millisecond of birth"[2][3] or impeaching Supreme Court Justices for "lying"[1] and "inciting nuclear war"[1][3])—is an original, idiosyncratic synthesis created by the author of these documents. It is not an established, mainstream legal doctrine found in standard textbooks.
However, the underlying components of this author's judicial philosophy—a mix of 19th-century international law formalism, consensual citizenship theory, strict executive-led foreign affairs comity, and national security consequentialism—are heavily formed and explained by several specific books and historical treatises:
1. The Core 19th-Century Foundation: Elements of International Law (1836)
Author: Henry Wheaton
Significance: The author of the write.as articles directly relies on and quotes Henry Wheaton’s classic 1866 edition[3]. Wheaton was the first great American authority on international law.
Why it explains the philosophy: Wheaton’s treatise is the definitive work explaining the Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon framework[3]. It details how sovereign nations exercise "comity," how territorial jurisdiction is absolute but can be adjusted or waived "expressly or impliedly" to maintain peace[2][3], and how extraterritoriality treaties (like the Barbary and East Asian treaties cited in the text[1][2]) historically functioned. If you want to understand the exact international law framework the author uses to argue that the President can waive jurisdiction over alien births, Wheaton's Elements is the primary source.
2. The Pragmatic & National Security Foundation: Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency (2006)
Author: Richard A. Posner
Significance: Posner, a prominent federal judge and legal pragmatist, wrote this book to argue that constitutional rights must be balanced against existential national survival.
Why it explains the philosophy: The write.as author argues that the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Barbara is unconstitutional because it strips the political branches of the power to avoid "extinction-level" conflicts and thermonuclear war with China[1][3]. Posner's book is the modern primer on this "consequentialist realism," arguing that the Constitution is not a "suicide pact" and that the judiciary must defer to the Executive on highly volatile, existential matters of national defense and foreign relations.
3. The Birthright Citizenship Foundation: Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity (1985)
Authors: Peter H. Schuck and Rogers M. Smith
Significance: This is the preeminent modern book challenging the automatic application of birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Why it explains the philosophy: The authors argue that the Fourteenth Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" clause must be understood through the lens of consent[2][3]. They assert that the political branches have the ultimate sovereign power to determine who is invited into the political community, matching the write.as author's argument that the Citizenship Clause does not confer an "affirmative positive right" to be born subject to U.S. jurisdiction[2][3].
4A. The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration: Principles and Challenges in the Reagan Era (and subsequent works)
Edward Erler, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, has written extensively on this topic, representing a more conservative originalist perspective on the Fourteenth Amendment.
How it relates to the author's philosophy: Erler argues that the Citizenship Clause was never intended to grant automatic citizenship to children of foreign nationals who entered the country without the sovereign's permission.
Key concept: Erler’s work focuses heavily on the debates surrounding the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment (particularly the statements of Senator Jacob Howard). He argues that "jurisdiction" requires complete and exclusive political allegiance. Under this view, the political branches of the government have the inherent sovereign power to clarify through legislation who is excluded from this jurisdiction, a premise central to the "Sovereign Express Waiver" theory.
4B. The Originalist Critique of Birthright Citizenship: The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration (2013)
Author: Edward J. Erler
Significance: Erler (a Claremont Institute scholar) provides the strict originalist framework arguing that "subject to the jurisdiction" requires complete political allegiance to the United States[1].
Why it explains the philosophy: Erler’s book explains the exact historical distinctions between tribal Indians (who were excluded from citizenship because they owed allegiance to sovereign tribes[1][2][3]) and the children of citizens. The write.as author heavily relies on this exact historical comparison (e.g., Elk v. Wilkins and the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act[2][3]) to argue that the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to strip the sovereign of its power to define its political borders.
Summary
While the "Sovereign Express Waiver" of an infant's birth at the "exact millisecond" is a unique legal theory designed by the author[2][3], the philosophy holding that the sovereign has absolute power to manage its borders and foreign affairs to prevent existential conflict is a synthesis of Henry Wheaton's 19th-century international comity[3], Schuck & Smith's consensual citizenship[2][3], and Richard Posner's national security pragmatism.
You mentioned that "The majority has introduced or reinforced several problematic principles when it comes to interpreting and applying the Constitution." but you did not mention the problematic increased risk of Nuclear War caused by conflicting claims made by two nuclear-armed countries now claiming the same Chinese people as "citizens" See this FAQ https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md
It is time for another article, discussing the known "Good Faith" grounds for Petition for ReHearing.
It was widely reported today [July 9, 2026] that President Trump has decided to direct his Attorneys to file a Petition for ReHearing, which requires the Attorneys to have "Good Fatith" arguments that the Supreme Court "overlooked" or "misapprehended" something ,or anything else potentially dispositive. Do you agree that the Supreme Court "overlooked" or "misapprehended" something dispositive? See draft Peitition for ReHearing at https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md
Under Supreme Court Rule 44, petitions for rehearing are subject to very strict standards:
The Standard of Review: A petition for rehearing of a non-dispositive order or a judgment on the merits must briefly and specifically state its grounds, showing that the Court overlooked or misapprehended intervening circumstances of a controlling effect or other substantial grounds.
The "Good Faith" Certificate: The petition must be accompanied by a certificate of counsel stating that it is presented in good faith and not for delay.
Historical Rarity: The Supreme Court historically grants petitions for rehearing in only an extremely small fraction of cases—typically only when there has been an extraordinary change in the law, a major conflict in lower courts that developed immediately after the ruling, or a severe, undiscovered factual error in the record.
There is at least two severe, undiscovered factual errors in the Majority Opinion:
Legal observers and news analysts have noted that the Supreme Court almost never rehears cases after handing down a merits decision, making Trump's bid Historic in itself. The President has been made aware that the Majority Opinion in Trump v. Barbara charts a course towards ThermoNuclear War. See Article 2 at https://write.as/edit/q1jc2dzd56xhp
Trump stated on TruthSocial:
"I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don't change their absolutely insane decision," Trump wrote on Truth Social.
”SCOTUSblog“CNBC noted that the court "has not agreed to rehear a ruling of a case already argued since 1965."
Donald Trump has not cited a specific legal theory for his request to the Supreme Court to rehear the birthright citizenship case,[but this draft under consideration by the President is public https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md ] instead he publicly characterizes the court's recent 6-3 ruling against his executive order as a creating an existential threat to the United States. Accord: The Supreme Court is "charting a judicial course toward open warfare with nuclear-armed foreign powers" https://write.as/edit/q1jc2dzd56xhp Trump expressed his intent to seek a rehearing immediately via a post on Truth Social, labeling the decision "absolutely insane".
The Supreme Court's June 30 decision blocked a 2025 executive order that sought to prevent children of undocumented immigrants from automatically gaining U.S. citizenship through mere fact of birth on American soil. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause applies to children born to parents who are in the United States unlawfully or temporarily. While Trump has called for a rehearing, the court's rules allow parties 25 days to petition for one based on the merits, though such requests are rarely granted. See Grounds under consideration for Grant of Trump's Petition to ReHear. https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defect in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defect in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
The kind of majority ( of 1) that decided this issue, like the 1 SCOTUS vote that decided the Presidency of the USA ( Gore vs Bush) and the destiny of the Free World , is a common sense aberration that should be considered as well.
Ultimately, it means this was a half-baked decision that hurts the US, disrespects the historic context of the Constitution , and creates new mayhem. May it be appealed and reversed.
WORSE, the Decision is based ON flagrant LIES https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md and is an attack against the Sovereign Power of Congress/President to define the territorial Borders and/or to define or limit the "jurisdiction of the United States". https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
Some interesting arguments here but the text of the 14 Amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is not fundamentally about natural rights or the Declaration of Independence, but constitutional rights. The dissent makes some fair points but the majority with the text, history, and over 100 years of precedent have the stronger argument.
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
That’s an interesting argument about executive power and the meaning of jurisdiction, and I agree that those questions deserve to be taken seriously. The difficulty is that your conclusion depends on the President possessing a unilateral power to waive constitutional birthright jurisdiction that has little support in the Constitution’s text, longstanding judicial precedent, or the historical evidence, which is why I remain persuaded by the majority’s reasoning.
Actually, there is historical proof that the Executive Does have Article 2 Authority to alter/waive Jurisdiction over Aliens in the US: The "Sovereign" who Waived Jurisdiction over the Aliens in Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court).was President Madison (and/or President and Congress) NOT THE COURT, and NOT THE CONSTITIUTION itself. (The Supreme Court in Exchange noted that "implied waivers" are "obligatory" but limited by judicial "interpretation" in the absence of "Treaty" or other "express waiver" which are "obligatory" without question by the Court as to the "motive" of the Sovereign).
President Trump's Executive Order expressly Declares No "Jurisdiction" over the specified classes of being-born aliens for Jus Soli purposes. Thus, it raises the prima facie question of Separation of Powers, does it EFFECT an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of Jurisdiction for purposes of Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court)
In Wong Kim Ark the Court acknowleged that "jurisdiction of the United States" can also be waived by constitutional "treaties" and mentions English Treaties that expressly waive "special jurisdiction" to prevent Jus Soli.
Documented history of English Executive Waivers of Jurdiction and Treaty-Waivers of Jus Soli are listed here in Article 3 Specification 2 and Specification 3 of this proposal. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
The key question is not whether the political branches can waive jurisdiction in particular contexts—they plainly can through doctrines like sovereign immunity, diplomacy, and treaties—but whether they can redefine the constitutional meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and those are distinct legal questions. The reason courts have consistently relied on The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon and United States v. Wong Kim Ark without reaching your conclusion is that those cases recognize limited waivers of sovereign authority in specific circumstances, not a general executive power to alter the constitutional rule governing birthright citizenship.The crucial point is that exempting someone from certain exercises of government authority is not the same thing as changing the Constitution’s definition of who is born under U.S. jurisdiction, and the latter requires constitutional—not merely executive—authority. The strength of Wong Kim Ark is that it interpreted the Citizenship Clause according to its text, the common-law understanding of birthright citizenship at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, and the historical record, making its reasoning durable for more than a century.
that may help you to understand these issues concerning the Doctrine of Sovereign Express Waivers of Jurisdiction and its geopolitical consequences versus Trump v. Barbara.
The Petiton for Cert and Brief filed on behalf of the President make no mention of "express waiver" of Jurisdiction and contain no suggestion that the Executive Order is such an instrument. Nor is the theory mentioned in the Majority Opinion nor in any of the Dissents. Nor is it suggested in any of the Amicus Briefs.
The question of an "executive power to alter the [jurisdictional extent of the United States over aliens being-born] governing birthright citizenship" was never suggested nor considered at all....
The "express waiver" theory does not involve any claim of "executive power to alter the constitutional rule"!!
To evaluate the litigation strategy in Trump v. Barbara fairly, one must
acknowledge that neither the text of Executive Order 14160 nor the formal briefs
filed on behalf of the President framed the policy as an "express sovereign
waiver" of jurisdiction under the doctrine of The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon and Wong Kim Ark
As a matter of record, the Petition for Certiorari (filed September 26, 2025) made no mention of a sovereign waiver theory. Furthermore, the Brief for the etitioners (filed January 20, 2026) only referenced The Schooner Exchange on pages 39–40 to defend the narrow, traditional "implied" exceptions for foreign diplomats, heads of state, and sovereign vessels. The brief argued that these classes enjoy jurisdictional carve-outs while remaining physically present, rather than asserting that the Executive has a unilateral, broader power to waive civil jurisdiction over civilian populations.
However, assuming (arguendo) the administration's legal team was fully cognizant of the Schooner Exchange "express waiver" framework, their decision to steer away from it reveals a highly calculated, high-stakes litigation strategy.
The President's attorneys likely prioritized long-term constitutional permanence over a short-term, easily reversible "Executive Order" victory.
The Strategic Calculus: Permanence vs. Administrative Impermanence.
Had the administration’s attorneys argued that Executive Order 14160 was an "express waiver" of U.S. jurisdiction under the President’s Article II powers,
they would have won—or at least defended—the policy on highly transient grounds.
1. The Peril of the Administrative Swing: If the exclusion of these children from birthright citizenship depended entirely on an active, discretionary executive waiver of civil jurisdiction, the policy would remain inherently impermanent. A subsequent, opposing administration could simply revoke Executive Order 14160 on its first day in office, "un-waiving" the jurisdiction and instantly restoring automatic birthright citizenship to the children of temporary and unauthorized aliens.
2. The Bid for a Permanent Constitutional Boundary: To prevent future administrations from reversing the policy, the legal team chose to litigate the Fourteenth Amendment as a self-executing, mandatory constitutional limitation on the Citizenship Clause.
They wanted the Supreme Court to declare that, as an objective matter of constitutional text and history, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" inherently and permanently excludes the children of temporary visitors and undocumented aliens.
3. The High-Stakes Constitutional Gambit: By framing the issue as an immutable,
text-based constitutional boundary rather than an exercise of Article 2 executive discretion, the administration gambled on a total victory. If the Supreme Court agreed with their interpretation of the default constitutional text, the ruling would be permanent, stripping future presidents and congresses of the power to restore birthright citizenship to these classes without a constitutional amendment.
Ultimately, the administration's attorneys deliberately bypassed the flexible, executive-scale Article 2 "express" sovereign "waiver" argument. Instead of settling for a temporary policy defense that could be undone by the next president, they designed their arguments to force a permanent, structural reinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment—accepting the high risk of a judicial defeat in pursuit of an irreversible constitutional legacy.
"The reason courts have consistently relied on The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon and United States v. Wong Kim Ark without reaching your conclusion" is simply because THERE HAS NEVER BEEN a prior case in which Congress or President purported to DECLARE AN EXPRESS WAIVER, and because they are like MONKEYS WHO CANNOT READ.
The reason courts and commentators in 2026 have relied on "implied waiver" aspect of The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to reject the President's express limitations on birthright citizenship—without considering the full scope of executive authority—stems from a fundamental failure to distinguish between default territorial jurisdiction and an express sovereign waiver.
Prior to recent executive and legislative actions, the judiciary had never been presented with a case where the political branches—either the President exercising Article II authority or Congress acting under Article I—purported to expressly, unilaterally, and prospectively waive civil and territorial jurisdiction over children being-born on U.S. soil to specified classes of aliens (such as temporary or unlawfully present non-citizens) at the exact moment of birth.
In The Schooner Exchange, Chief Justice John Marshall established that while a nation's territorial jurisdiction is "absolute and exclusive," any exemptions from that jurisdiction (such as those granted to foreign sovereign vessels) are matters of sovereign consent, which are typically implied by international comity unless the political branches "expressly" declare otherwise. Similarly, in Wong Kim Ark, the Court applied the default common-law rule of jus soli (territorial birthright citizenship) precisely because the political branches had not enacted any affirmative, express waiver (The court found no existing "Treaty" applicable to the jurisdiction of the United States over Chinese persons "born") relinquishing Jus Soli jurisdiction over the children of resident aliens. Because both foundational cases operated in the absolute absence of an "express" political declaration, modern courts have mistaken a historical absence of "express" political action for a lack of constitutional authority in 2026.
This unquestioning reliance on default rules mirrors the famous Stephenson "Five Monkeys" ladder experiment (often cited in organizational psychology). In the experiment's parable, a group of primates is conditioned via a cold-water spray to avoid a ladder leading to a bunch of bananas. Over time, the original monkeys are systematically replaced with new ones who have never experienced the water spray. Despite the threat being entirely removed, the group continues to aggressively pull down and punish any newcomer who attempts to climb the ladder. If the monkeys could explain their behavior, or write and read, their only rationale would be, "We don't do that here; it's just the way it has always been done."
By treating the default holdings of Wong Kim Ark and The Schooner Exchange as absolute, unalterable barriers to executive or legislative policy, modern attorneys and judges behave like the conditioned primates in the experiment. They zealously guard the ladder of precedent, completely unaware that the restriction they are enforcing was always contingent on the silence of the political branches, and that an "express", unilateral waiver of jurisdiction by the sovereign is an "obligatory" mandate that fundamentally reshapes the constitutional equation.
The phenomenon of legal professionals and jurists treating a historically conditioned, default state of affairs as an immutable constitutional absolute is a form of cognitive anchoring and learned helplessness.
In psychology and behavioral science, several classic analogies illustrate how subjects become conditioned to accept artificial limitations, continuing to respect those boundaries long after the underlying constraints have changed or disappeared. These metaphors map directly onto the legal community’s unexamined reliance on default precedents.
1. The Elephant and the Peg:
Learned Helplessness and Structural Inertia
In training camps, a baby elephant is tied to a wooden peg driven deep into the ground using a thick, heavy rope. The calf lacks the physical strength to break the rope or pull up the peg, and after repeated struggles, it eventually stops trying.
As the elephant grows into a multi-ton adult possessing the brute strength to easily uproot trees, it remains tethered by the exact same thin rope and small wooden peg. The adult elephant makes no attempt to escape because it remains mentally anchored to the physical limitations of its infancy.
The Legal Parallel:
During their formative legal education (the "calf" stage), lawyers and judges are trained to view United States v. Wong Kim Ark as an unshakeable, absolute pillar of constitutional law. They are taught that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a simple, broad territorial test that cannot be modified.
Because of this early conditioning, the legal profession behaves like the adult elephant. They possess the immense constitutional "muscle" of the political branches—namely, the sovereign authority to declare an express waiver of civil jurisdiction under Article I or Article II—yet they remain tethered to a weak, simplistic reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. They refuse to test the rope because they assume the limitations taught to them in law school remain absolute.
2. The Flea in the Jar:
Acclimated Limits and the Removed Barrier
If you place fleas inside a glass jar, they will immediately jump to escape. However, if you place a lid on the jar, the fleas will repeatedly collide with the lid. Within a short period, the fleas adjust their jump height to land just beneath the glass ceiling to avoid the painful impact.
Crucially, when the lid is completely removed, the fleas continue to jump only to that pre-conditioned height. They never escape the jar, and even their offspring learn to mimic the same restricted jump, remaining trapped within an open container.
The Legal Parallel:
The "lid" represents the historic lack of political action. For over a century, because no President or Congress had declared an express waiver, the constitutional ceiling of birthright citizenship appeared completely solid and low. The legal community acclimated to this low ceiling, shaping all litigation and arguments around the assumption that the "lid" was a permanent fixture.
When a President or Congress introduces an express waiver, they are effectively removing the lid. Yet, instead of leaping into the newly opened legal space (the recognition that sovereign consent governs civil jurisdiction), the appellate bar and the judiciary continue to jump only to the height of the old ceiling, arguing Wong Kim Ark within the exact same narrow, pre-conditioned parameters.
" those cases recognize limited waivers of sovereign authority in specific circumstances," Both of Schooner Exchange and Wong Kim Ark specifically noted the ABSENCE of a "TREATY" purporting to prescribe a waiver of jurisidction in each case. It is an accident of History merely that there are no Express Waivers in the caselaw. Does Congress lose its Sovereign Power to define jurisdiction merely because of happenstance in history?
And:
The Citizenship Clause does not confer upon an alien an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT TO BE "born".
The Citizenship Clause does not confer upon an alien an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT TO BE "born within the United States".
The Citizenship Clause does not confer upon an alien an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT TO BE "born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States".
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not affirmatively "guarantee" that the US Border will not be changed to draw the line outide the Hospital.
There is no command in the Citizenship Clause that "all persons born in the United States shall be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"!!!! The Citizenship Clause does not state "Nor shall congress enact a law respecting a change to the jurisdiction of the United States"
There is nothing but overreaching judicial fiat in Trump v. Barbara that imagines a limitation of the sovereign power of the Congress/President to make a Treaty of Extraterritoriality with China to prevent its Jus Sanguinis citizens from being claimed and protected by the United States.
Moreover, Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court) instructs that a "waiver" of jurisdiction can only be found within the "consent" of the "sovereign" which has "absolute" power to waive or not waive its jurisdiction, and that the Supreme Court is not the Sovereign. The consent of the United States to waive jurisdiction of the United States over "foreign diplomats" is a STATUTORY/TREATY consent of the Sovereign. The United States has sovereign power to assert its jurisdiction of the United States over "foreign diplomats" (in fact Article 3 of the US Constitution states this positive jurisdiction explicitly. e.g., grant of original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases affecting ambassadors and consuls). The Supreme Court cannot compel the sovereign to waive jurisdiction over "foreign diplomats", and insofar as its opinion in Trump v. Barbara purports to construct a "constitutional" restraint upon the Congress's power to waive or not waive jurisdiction over "foreign diplomats, that is a usurpation.
I don’t think this addresses my previous point, which was that the legal issue is not whether the political branches can waive jurisdiction in specific contexts like diplomatic immunity, but whether they can redefine the constitutional meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and The Schooner Exchange does not establish that broader proposition. Your argument continues to treat sovereign waivers in foreign affairs as if they are equivalent to changing a constitutional rule governing birthright citizenship, but that is precisely the distinction recognized in Wong Kim Ark and why the analogy does not carry the weight you assign to it. respectfully, why does this particular decision matters so much to you and why its implications for immigration and birthright citizenship are such a concern?
I do not see any logical basis for your repeated contention that an express sovereigb waiver (by the Congress and/or President) of "jurisidiction of the United States" over aliens being-born within the United States "equivalent to changing a constitutional rule governing birthright citizenship"
The Citizenship Clause establishes an simple IF/THEN rule: IF (alien is born within and subject to the jurisidiction of the United States) THEN (born as a "citizen of the United States")
This Conditional Rule does not purport to confer any Affirmative Right upon an alien to be "born within the United States. A Treaty that moves the Boundary of the United States Territory around the Hospital or Place of Birth violates no constitutional right of the alien giving birth nor of the alien being born.
This Conditional Rule does not purport to confer any Affirmative Right upon an alien to be "born subject to the United States". A Treaty that removes the Jurisdiction of the United States Territory over the alien being born violates no constitutional right of the alien giving birth nor of the alien being born.
Wong Kim Ark is not to the contrary. And Wong Kim Ark specifically reports that the Supreme Court examined the existing TREATIES between US and China lookig for an "obligatory" waiver of jurisdiction, and the Court decided that those existing treaties did not purport to waive the Jurisdiction of the United States over Chinese being "born" within the United States, as opposed to "naturalized"
Is there still a disagreement in some aspect of your perception of the issues?
"why does this particular decision matters so much to you and why its implications for immigration and birthright citizenship are such a concern"? Please read trough the provided link
and you will understand the importance of the Court-mandated assertion of Jus Soli/Jurisdiction goes beyond the best interests of the aliens. The War of 1812 was caused by the conflicting claims by English and American sovereigns over US citizens. The US Supreme Court has charted a course for Nuclear War with China by aggressively claiming that will-be Millions of Chinese Nationals raised and domiciled in China are "US Citizens" that the US is obligated to "protect" by diplomatic and military force from the Chinese Government.
Quote: "the legal issue is not whether the political branches can waive jurisdiction in specific contexts like diplomatic immunity". Actually that is also a part of it. According to overreaching Trump v. Barbara dictum, the political branches can NOT repeal a statutory waiver jurisdiction in specific contexts like diplomatic immunity in such a way that applies US jurisdiction and citizenship to the children of foreign diplomats. The Majority's dictum locks the Political Branches out of the Sovereign Power to assert such "jurisdiction of the United States". This cuts the other way, but illustrates the illegitmacy of the Court's dictum.
"Your argument continues to treat sovereign waivers in foreign affairs as if they are equivalent to changing a constitutional rule governing birthright citizenship, but that is precisely the distinction recognized in Wong Kim Ark"
If the Constutition states: All persons born within the United States under shade of a Oak Tree are citizens of the United States.... And the President of the United States by Executive Order claims Eminent Domain over all such trees and he chops down all the Oak Trees within the United States (such that no aliens can thereafter claim birthright citizenship) DID THE PRESIDENT " "chang[e] a constitutional rule governing birthright citizenship" or did he simply take an Executive Action that reduced the aliens' opportunity for the Conditions specified in the Rule to occur "within the United States"? You really need to think harder about the meaning of "rule" and "condition" and cause-and-effect occurrences.
The Schooner Exchange Doctrine existed prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and assumes that "jurisdiction of the country" is regulated by the "express or implied" "consent" of the "sovereign" without regard for the desires of "individual" aliens. The Fourteenth Amendment does not purport to change the Sovereign power to "waive" or assert "jurisdiction of the United States" over aliens (other rules in the Constitution prevent the President from waiving Jurisdiction over citizens). Aliens have zero affirmative rights as-against the sovereign United States before and after the 14th Amendment.
?? What is the "constitutional" definition of "within the United States"? It means on territory relative to wherever the US Border happens to be at the time of the "born" event. The 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause ratified in 1868 does not exclude Hawaii and Alaska does it? If the US cedes California or Texas back to Mexico in 2028, will the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause continue to vest persons born in Mexico with US Citizenship? No. That would be Stupid.
It is also beyond nonsensical to imagine that the words "jurisdiction of the United States" is a fixed jurisdiction that cannot be changed by Congress/President. The 14th Amendment clearly does not state "and subect to such Jurisdiction as the United States had not expressly or impliedly waived in 1868".
the "constitutional" meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction”, the Supreme Court stated in Wong Kim Ark and again in Trump v Barbara is: AS DEFINED IN Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court).
The Legal Path from the words "subject to the Jurisdiction" to recognizing the existence of an "Express Waiver" consists of merely READING the decision in Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812) where it states that "jurisdiction" can be wavied by "express or implied" waiver and that such a waiver is "obligatory" upon the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court has in Trump v. Barbara arbitrarily and totally ignored the dispositive part of Schooner Exchange holding that "jurisdiction" can be wavied by "express or implied" waiver and that such a waiver is "obligatory" upon the Supreme Court of the United States. [Hence, the proposed Articles of Impeachment at https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md ]
You’re treating every use of the word “jurisdiction” in constitutional law as though it means the same thing, but The Schooner Exchange concerned the government’s discretionary exercise of sovereign authority over foreign ships while the Fourteenth Amendment concerns the constitutional status of persons born under U.S. sovereignty, so your entire argument rests on conflating two distinct legal concepts rather than showing that one controls the other.
No, I am not. The Decision in Trump v. Barbara itself expressly states that the phrase "subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States" is DEFINED THE SAME AS the words "Jurisdiction of the country" is defined in and AS-LIMITED by implied "WAIVERs" described in "The Schooner Exchange". The Majority Opinion confirms the correctness of my statements, but simply IGNORES the existence of the "express waiver" branch of the "express or implied" waiver Doctrine of The Schooner Exchange. The entire 26-page Majority Opinion does not even one time include the word "express".
You suppose that: "The Schooner Exchange concerned the government’s discretionary exercise of sovereign authority over foreign ships"
Correction: The Schooner Exchange concerned the government’s discretionary exercise of sovereign authority over [ALIENS on] foreign ships" in US ports, and dicussed "general principles" that apply to "private" "individual" Aliens walking around on US land, and the Trump v. Barbara Opinion itself quotes the example of "individual" ALIENS walking on land having only an "implied license" from the sovereign and only having possibly an "implied waiver". The Schooner Exchange decision expressly mentions that there is NO EXPRESS "TREATY" involved in the facts of the case to define the extent of the Waiver by the Sovereign.
I appreciate that you are trying to find a rational reason for the Supreme Court's total disregard of the "express sovereign waiver" argument, but really there is no "rational" reason for that Omission. You want to believe that the Attorneys and the Supreme Court of the United States are COMPETENT and RATIONAL, but that is simpy not the reality of this case.
Appreciate the response but we have to just agree to disagree. We are also probably just talking past each other anyway. I don't believe the Constitution leaves the political branches free to redefine the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction," whereas I think Wong Kim Ark correctly held that the Fourteenth Amendment itself fixed the constitutional meaning of that phrase, leaving Congress and the President free to waive the exercise of jurisdiction in particular cases but not to redefine who is constitutionally born under it. I agree that "within the United States" changes when sovereign territory changes—as with Alaska, Hawaii, or a hypothetical territorial cession—but that is different from changing the constitutional status of people born on territory that is unquestionably within the United States at the time of birth, which is the issue here. I get why you believe the stakes are significant, but I don't see evidence that recognizing birthright citizenship creates the geopolitical dangers you describe, and I remain unconvinced that The Schooner Exchange can override the constitutional rule that the Supreme Court recognized in Wong Kim Ark. Roberts was correct to emphasize that the Citizenship Clause first requires birth "in the United States," with the jurisdiction language operating as a narrow exception for historically recognized categories like diplomats and invading armies, rather than as a broad grant of power allowing the political branches to redefine the constitutional rule itself. That's the whole ball game. Thomas and Alito's opinions were wrong because they too narrowly focused on the jurisdiction exception while giving insufficient weight to the Clause's opening command that all persons born in the United States are citizens unless they fall within those historically understood exceptions.
Quote: "Does the decision allow a mother here illegally to remain?" The Court's creation of Anchor Baby "US Citizen" status for illegal alien mothers imposes administrative/discretionary burdens upon the US Government at time of Deportation orders. They illegal alien can argue their deportation would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their U.S. citizen (or Lawful Permanent Resident) child. A child's U.S. citizenship can significantly impact the deportation process by opening up specific avenues of legal defense, administrative relief, or prosecutorial discretion.
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
You are welcome to https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md , but also read the proposed ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT which are more detailed and strongly worded. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md These links and texts need to be brought to the Attention of Congress (for Impeachment, to ratify Treaties), the President (to file Motion for ReHearing, sign Treaties), and the President's Attorneys ASAP, like using X, email, Youtube etc. There are only about 17 days left to file a Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara.
This post says a whole lot of nothing. Little is more clearly established in the law and practice than that being born in the country makes you a citizen. This writer is an idiot.
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
LOL. Coping hard aren’t we? Trump has the right to “waive” jurisdiction for the “millisecond” after birth for anyone he wants? The President can unilaterally declare anyone he likes not a citizen at birth? Sure. Good luck with that theory. You are just further proof that the people who think this way are mentally ill.
Your hyperbole is inaccurate and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the significance of US citizenship. Once a person has been condemned to being "born ... subject to the jurisdiction" they will forever carry the oppressive burdens of US Citizenship including Global Tax Liability, global liability for violating US laws, Global liability to be extradicted back to the United States, and Global liability to be conscripted to serve in the US military. And, with US citizenship comes the Government having the "Jus Sanguinis" ownership of your children wherever they are born in the world. Thus, once condemned to being a US citizen, you are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" and so are your children. The children of US citizens are always "born ... subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" Minor v. Happersett | 88 U.S. 162 (1874) [unless a statute relieves the family of that oppressive burden.
"There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the Fourteenth Amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." But in our opinion it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption, the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several states, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. ... Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were."
...
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their
Page 88 U. S. 168
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett | 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
Further, the Article 1 and Article 2 Comity Power to Waive Jurisdiction is limited to undomiciled "aliens", not citizens, so not "for anyone he wants". Further, the President has discretion to DEPORT any such pregnant illegal alien and that necessarily includes the physical power to prevent a pregnant alien from giving birth. And, the Government is entitled to exercise discretion to terminate the pregnancy of any alien woman who is incarcerated? So, there always was, always will be, the absolute and arbitary power of the President to prevent a citizenship from vesting in the child of an illegal alien. See https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md
Why should a foreign sovereign have more power than the US President to control whether an alien born on US soil obtains US citizenshiP? This is a serious question. A foreign sovereign can withdraw diplomatic papers from its ambassador without notice, during the birth of his child for example, subjecting the former ambasador and his child to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Why can't the US President likewise say to the foreign sovereign, no thanks, keep this alien communist baby and leave, we don't want or need it to rule over us here in America?
By aggressively claiming Chinese nationals also claimbed by China under Jus Sanguinis, Barret is helping to ignite a Nuclear War with China. See ARTICLE 2 of draft ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT at https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
The War of 1812 was ignited and fought over competing claims Jus Soli versus Jus Sanguinis made by English and United States goverments over men's able bodies. (e.g., Impressment of American Seamen claimed by English to be subjects of the King)
England and the United States avoided such wars with lesser nations by compelling weaker nations to expressly waive Jus Soli jurisdiction over the children of American/English travelers or merchants residing in the treaty-signatory's territory. See list of such treaties in Article 2 of https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
Now, Nuclear Weapons make some nations super-powers that simply should not be asserting conflicting claims (Jus Soli versus Jus Sanguinis) over each other's citizen's children in a manner likely to incite foreseeable conflicts or wars (like War of 1812)
Now, without any explicilt mention of the "War of 1812", nor any mention of "China", the Supreme Court has compelled the United States to assert Jus Soli claims against China's Jus Sanguinis children (of Chinese Tourists, Students, athetes, tech workers etc) visiting the United States by simply ENTIRELY IGNORING the "Sovereign Express Waiver" Doctrine of Schooner Exchange and Wong Kim Ark. See this FAQ https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md
To SILENTLY subvert the sovereign power of the United States and to SILENTLY OVERRULE the Sovereign "Express Waiver" doctrine of Wong Kim Ark in this manner is a CRIMINAL ACT by the Judges, for which they should be IMPEACHED: Articles of Impeachment https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
The Judges criminality of the Justices is aggravated by their STEALTH (without any explicilt mention of the "War of 1812", nor any mention of "China", nor the word "express" or "express waiver"), which amounts to Fraudulent Concealment and Common Law PERJURY.
When a Ruler has a choice between two alternatives, one of which is promoted by the LEFT/Democrats/Women, and one of which tends to avoid precipitating a Global ThermoNuclear War, and the Ruler choses the direction preferred by Women, the People and History can rightfully condemn that Ruler as a Tyrant and as a Mad Man. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
P.S. It was widely reported today [July 9, 2026] that President Trump has decided to file direct his Attorneys to file a Petition for ReHearing, which requires the Attorneys to have "Good Fatith" Arguments that the Supreme Court "overlooked" or "misapprehended" something dispositive. Do you agree that the Supreme Court "overlooked" or "misapprehended" something dispositive? See draft Peitition for ReHearing at https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md More Detail at https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
Under Supreme Court Rule 44, petitions for rehearing are subject to very strict standards:
The Standard of Review: A petition for rehearing of a non-dispositive order or a judgment on the merits must briefly and specifically state its grounds, showing that the Court overlooked or misapprehended intervening circumstances of a controlling effect or other substantial grounds.
The "Good Faith" Certificate: The petition must be accompanied by a certificate of counsel stating that it is presented in good faith and not for delay.
Historical Rarity: The Supreme Court historically grants petitions for rehearing in only an extremely small fraction of cases—typically only when there has been an extraordinary change in the law, a major conflict in lower courts that developed immediately after the ruling, or a severe, undiscovered factual error in the record.
There is at least two severe, undiscovered factual errors in the Majority Opinion:
6C. Did the Majority in Trump v. Barbara intend to create these "potentially extinction-level geopolitical risks"?
Yes. The Dissenters explicitly warned the Majority that they were requiring the United States to “protect” Chinese aliens being raised “abroad” from the Chinese government, and that they are providing material support (special “US citizen” soldiers) to the enemies of the United States, and deep “Spies” in future “wars”:
>Fourth, domicile determined which government owed a person protection when he went abroad. As this Court explained, “[t]he American citizen who goes into a foreign country... is... entitled to the protection of our government.” Schooner Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch, at 120;
[Dissent of THOMAS, P. 17]
>The Court’s decision to hold the Citizenship Order facially unconstitutional, in other words, makes it unlawful for the President to enforce the Order against a single person. He cannot enforce the Order against a child of an alien enemy or a child of a foreign spy. He cannot even enforce the Order against children who are raised in foreign countries, join foreign armies, and fight wars against the United States. The Court, without considering any of these individual circumstances, holds unconstitutional the application of the Citizenship Order in all of them. ...
>In my view, the Citizenship Order is not facially unconstitutional. The Order is consistent with the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause, at least insofar as it applies to children born to parents, here lawfully or unlawfully, who are not domiciled in the United States. The Citizenship Clause was enacted for people who were born in this country and called it home.
[Dissent of THOMAS, P.56]
>The Court’s interpretation is not only contrary to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it produces grotesque results ... The Court’s interpretation also has national-security implications. Accord, ante, at 56 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Suppose that a person’s only connection to this country is that he was born here to a mother who was present just long enough to give birth and then quickly returned to her native country. Suppose that country is a strategic adversary or enemy of the United States. Suppose the child never visited the United States while growing up and was inculcated with hatred of this country. According to the Court, that person is a citizen of the United States. He can enter and leave the country as he pleases. He can travel the world on a United States passport. Even if he plots to harm this country, he cannot be deprived of his status as a citizen, at least under current precedent. See Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U. S. 252, 259–260 (1980).
Judgement makes no sense. What is the point of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" if its removal would make no difference to the interpretation.
Majority completely nullified the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
See this FAQ https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md to understand how the Majority went outside its precedents to attack the sovereinty of the United States and chart a course towards nuclear war (a nuclear version of the War of 1812)
On Truth Social [July 8, 2026], President Trump announced his intention to file a Petition for ReHearing, warning of the severe existential implications of the current ruling:
"This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision"
The core issue here is the dangerous legal and geopolitical precedent being set.
The Court's current trajectory is "Unconstitutionally Charting a Course for Nuclear War"—an escalation that should deeply concern anyone invested in constitutional limits and national security, regardless of their political alignment.
When partisan hostility blinds the judiciary to the broader consequences of its rulings, the stability of the entire country is placed at risk.
For a detailed breakdown of the constitutional and security implications of this
course, see this analysis: https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
The draft Petition for ReHearing itself can be reviewed here:
https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md
For further context on the legal issues at play, this FAQ is highly informative:
https://write.as/edit/0yshqzd1c8mvo
Much to digest in your article. The most shocking assertion by a Supreme Court justice is this:
"She (Jackson) reenforces the majority’s assumption that the Constitution lacks historical coherence by referencing the Reconstruction era as America’s “Second Founding.”' If the Constitution can be ignored in this case, the ramifications (as you state) are tremendous. I do not see how the 14th Amendment is applicable in this case. Wasn't the 14th Amendment about freed slaves?
Quote "I do not see how the 14th Amendment is applicable in this case. Wasn't the 14th Amendment about freed slaves?
Correct. The language "subject to the Jurisdiction" was intended to include the 4 Million black freemen, and to exclude the many Tribal-Indians who were Tribal-subjects (those not taxed or not domiciled outside of the Tribal Reservation); and also to exclude any other aliens that Congress or the President expressly or impliedly excepted from "the jurisdiction of the United States" (such as foreign merchants on ships in US ports, foreign embasadors, foreign military etc)
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
Just as the Supreme Court created legal gay marriage, legal and then illegal abortion, legal and then illegal DEI, all of this on split votes, it's clear that to go to the original focus of granting ex-slaves guarantee of citizenship would be quite within the Court's purview. Crucial issues changing our culture should be, like Brown vs. Board of Ed., unanimous. Indeed, what is the point of "subject to the jurisdiction," if its absence changes nothing?
Correct. The language "subject to the Jurisdiction" was intended to include the 4 Million black freemen, and to exclude the many Tribal-Indians who were Tribal-subjects (but not excluding Indians taxed or domiciled outside of the Tribal Reservation); and also to exclude any other aliens that Congress or the President expressly or impliedly excepted from "the jurisdiction of the United States" (such as foreign merchants on ships in US ports, foreign embasadors, foreign military etc)
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
Border security will now be the thing. For sure. It’s a shame because it might make us a less open and welcoming society, but the court has given the nation no obvious alternative now.
"Border security will now be the thing" That may not be enough. https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md
Quote: "Is there a specific book that best formed or explains your judiical philosophy [at https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md and https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md ]?"
[See/Search "Henry Wheaton" in comments]
But, AI also generated this report citing the BIBLE as "explains [the] judiical philosophy :
[W]e can explore the objective, historical relationship between ethical principles—like the Golden Rule—and the development of international law, treaty interpretation, and the doctrine of comity.
The Golden Rule in the History of International Law
The ethical concept of reciprocity—treating other sovereign entities as one would wish to be treated—has been a foundational pillar of international law for centuries. Early legal theorists sought to ground the interactions of sovereign states in moral and natural law rather than mere power politics.
1. Natural Law and Hugo Grotius
Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), frequently regarded as the father of modern international law, argued in De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace) that a "Law of Nations" (jus gentium) exists, derived from natural law and mutual consent.
The Principle: Grotius posited that sovereign states, like individuals in a state of nature, are bound by moral duties. Chief among these is the rule of good faith (bona fides) and reciprocity.
Application: For treaties to function, states must act with the expectation that obligations are mutual. To demand a right from another sovereign while denying that same right to them violates the natural order and destabilizes peace.
2. Samuel von Pufendorf and Mutual Duty
Samuel von Pufendorf (1632–1694) expanded on these concepts by directly linking the duties of sovereigns to the natural equality of mankind. He argued that since all sovereigns are equal in the international arena, no single state can unilaterally impose its domestic will or legal frameworks onto another without consent. This is the secularized equivalent of the Golden Rule: sovereign equality requires mutual respect of jurisdictional boundaries.
3. The Legal Doctrine of Comity (Comitas Gentium)
In modern jurisprudence, the "Golden Rule" of international relations is formalized through the doctrine of comity.
Definition: As defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hilton v. Guyot (1895), comity is "neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other." It is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens.
The Mechanism: Comity prevents nations from overreaching their jurisdiction. For example, a nation respects the nationality and citizenship laws of another sovereign to ensure that its own citizenship laws are respected in return.
The Constitutional Debate: Judicial Formalism vs. Foreign Affairs Deference
The tension highlighted in your analysis—between rigid constitutional interpretation and the practical realities of foreign policy—is a central debate in American constitutional law.
The Case for Judicial Deference (The Political Question Doctrine)
Many legal scholars and advocates argue that the judiciary should exercise restraint when rulings intersect with foreign affairs, treaty negotiations, or geopolitical security.
The Argument: The Executive and Legislative branches (the political branches) are constitutionally vested with the power to conduct foreign relations, command the military, and negotiate treaties. Because the judiciary lacks the information, expertise, and diplomatic tools to manage international relations, courts have traditionally avoided interfering in matters that could embarrass the executive or complicate relations with foreign sovereigns (often cited under the political question doctrine established in Baker v. Carr).
Consequentialist Concerns: Proponents of this view argue that a "one-size-fits-all" domestic ruling that inadvertently disrupts international comity can have serious real-world consequences, limiting the President's ability to negotiate reciprocal agreements with foreign powers.
The Case for Judicial Formalism
Conversely, proponents of a strict formalist or originalist approach argue that the Supreme Court's primary duty is to interpret the Constitution as written, regardless of the potential diplomatic or geopolitical consequences.
The Argument: From this perspective, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the judiciary cannot alter its meaning to accommodate shifting foreign policy needs or executive convenience. If a constitutional provision (such as the Fourteenth Amendment) mandates a certain result, formalists argue that it is up to the political branches or the amendment process to change the law, not the courts.
Within the specific legal framework proposed in these writings, (the "Sovereign Express Waiver" Thesis of The Martial Terran https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md ) several core concepts are synthesized to challenge current birthright citizenship jurisprudence of Trump v. Barbara:
First, the thesis relies on the principle of Sovereign Express Waiver, which posits that the Executive branch possesses the inherent Article II authority to explicitly waive territorial jurisdiction over specific classes of foreign nationals, drawing precedent from the historical application of sovereign comity in The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon.
Second, it emphasizes Sovereign Reciprocity—referred to as the "Inter-National Golden Rule"—arguing that the United States must respect the nationality and jurisdictional boundaries of other sovereign states to maintain international comity and prevent geopolitical destabilization.
Finally, the thesis of The Martial Terran advocates for Consequentialist Realism, asserting that constitutional provisions must not be interpreted by the judiciary in a rigid, formalist manner that strips the political branches of the diplomatic and national security tools necessary to prevent catastrophic global conflict.
Quote: "Is there a specific book that best formed or explains your judiical philosophy?"
What is my judiical philosophy?
Judges Should Not LIE: https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
Judges Should Not LIE for the purpose of INCITING WARS between Nuclear-Armed sovereign adversaries. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md and https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md
Judges Should Not ignore Reductio Ad Absurdum nor ignore Credible "Extinction-Level Risk" Ad Terrorem arguments (This seems to contradict the "Originalist" psychopathy?) https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md
Formally:
Based on the premises provided, the judicial philosophy reflected in these
arguments represents a form of Consequentialist Pragmatism combined with a
strict demand for Judicial Candor and Sovereign Prudentialism.
This philosophy stands in contrast to rigid, formalistic originalism, arguing
instead that the judiciary must be bound by truth, real-world consequences, and
the preservation of the state.
The completed list of this judicial philosophy’s core tenets includes:
1. Absolute Judicial Candor (Judges Should Not Lie)
- Principle: Courts must maintain strict factual, historical, and intellectual
honesty in their opinions.
- Rationale: Legal fictions, mischaracterizations of precedent, or deliberately
"misapprehending" dispositive facts to achieve a desired political or legal
outcome undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary and violate the basic duty
of the court.
2. Existential and Geopolitical Prudentialism (Judges Should Not Incite Geopolitical Conflict)
- Principle: The judiciary must not issue rulings that destabilize
international relations or escalate tensions between nuclear-armed sovereign
powers.
- Rationale: Legal interpretations do not exist in a vacuum. Judges must
recognize the foreign policy and national security implications of their
decisions, and that control over these matters are vested exclusively in the Political Branches, ensuring that judicial actions do not inadvertently trigger existential or military crises.
3. Consequentialist Realism (Judges Must Avoid Absurd or Catastrophic Outcomes)
- Principle: Courts must actively consider reductio ad absurdum (proof by
absurdity) and argumentum in terrorem (arguments warning of catastrophic
real-world consequences).
- Rationale: A rigid, dogmatic adherence to certain formalist or originalist
theories—especially when they produce absurd results or threaten the
stability of the republic—is rejected. This aligns with the classic legal
maxim that the Constitution is not a "suicide pact."
4. Primacy of Sovereign Self-Preservation
- Principle: The ultimate duty of constitutional interpretation is to preserve
the integrity, security, and sovereignty of the nation.
- Rationale: Legal doctrines regarding citizenship, jurisdiction, and national
boundaries must be interpreted in a way that allows the sovereign power
(Congress and the Executive) to protect the polity from external influence
and internal destabilization.
##################
# Generative AI Analysis reports:
An examination of the live contents of these four documents reveals a highly detailed, original legal-geopolitical theory[1][2][3][4].
The specific legal doctrine of a "Sovereign Express Waiver"—and its precise mechanical applications (such as the President waiving jurisdiction over an infant's corpus at the "exact millisecond of birth"[2][3] or impeaching Supreme Court Justices for "lying"[1] and "inciting nuclear war"[1][3])—is an original, idiosyncratic synthesis created by the author of these documents. It is not an established, mainstream legal doctrine found in standard textbooks.
However, the underlying components of this author's judicial philosophy—a mix of 19th-century international law formalism, consensual citizenship theory, strict executive-led foreign affairs comity, and national security consequentialism—are heavily formed and explained by several specific books and historical treatises:
1. The Core 19th-Century Foundation: Elements of International Law (1836)
Author: Henry Wheaton
Significance: The author of the write.as articles directly relies on and quotes Henry Wheaton’s classic 1866 edition[3]. Wheaton was the first great American authority on international law.
Why it explains the philosophy: Wheaton’s treatise is the definitive work explaining the Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon framework[3]. It details how sovereign nations exercise "comity," how territorial jurisdiction is absolute but can be adjusted or waived "expressly or impliedly" to maintain peace[2][3], and how extraterritoriality treaties (like the Barbary and East Asian treaties cited in the text[1][2]) historically functioned. If you want to understand the exact international law framework the author uses to argue that the President can waive jurisdiction over alien births, Wheaton's Elements is the primary source.
2. The Pragmatic & National Security Foundation: Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency (2006)
Author: Richard A. Posner
Significance: Posner, a prominent federal judge and legal pragmatist, wrote this book to argue that constitutional rights must be balanced against existential national survival.
Why it explains the philosophy: The write.as author argues that the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Barbara is unconstitutional because it strips the political branches of the power to avoid "extinction-level" conflicts and thermonuclear war with China[1][3]. Posner's book is the modern primer on this "consequentialist realism," arguing that the Constitution is not a "suicide pact" and that the judiciary must defer to the Executive on highly volatile, existential matters of national defense and foreign relations.
3. The Birthright Citizenship Foundation: Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity (1985)
Authors: Peter H. Schuck and Rogers M. Smith
Significance: This is the preeminent modern book challenging the automatic application of birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Why it explains the philosophy: The authors argue that the Fourteenth Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" clause must be understood through the lens of consent[2][3]. They assert that the political branches have the ultimate sovereign power to determine who is invited into the political community, matching the write.as author's argument that the Citizenship Clause does not confer an "affirmative positive right" to be born subject to U.S. jurisdiction[2][3].
4A. The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration: Principles and Challenges in the Reagan Era (and subsequent works)
Edward Erler, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, has written extensively on this topic, representing a more conservative originalist perspective on the Fourteenth Amendment.
How it relates to the author's philosophy: Erler argues that the Citizenship Clause was never intended to grant automatic citizenship to children of foreign nationals who entered the country without the sovereign's permission.
Key concept: Erler’s work focuses heavily on the debates surrounding the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment (particularly the statements of Senator Jacob Howard). He argues that "jurisdiction" requires complete and exclusive political allegiance. Under this view, the political branches of the government have the inherent sovereign power to clarify through legislation who is excluded from this jurisdiction, a premise central to the "Sovereign Express Waiver" theory.
4B. The Originalist Critique of Birthright Citizenship: The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration (2013)
Author: Edward J. Erler
Significance: Erler (a Claremont Institute scholar) provides the strict originalist framework arguing that "subject to the jurisdiction" requires complete political allegiance to the United States[1].
Why it explains the philosophy: Erler’s book explains the exact historical distinctions between tribal Indians (who were excluded from citizenship because they owed allegiance to sovereign tribes[1][2][3]) and the children of citizens. The write.as author heavily relies on this exact historical comparison (e.g., Elk v. Wilkins and the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act[2][3]) to argue that the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to strip the sovereign of its power to define its political borders.
Summary
While the "Sovereign Express Waiver" of an infant's birth at the "exact millisecond" is a unique legal theory designed by the author[2][3], the philosophy holding that the sovereign has absolute power to manage its borders and foreign affairs to prevent existential conflict is a synthesis of Henry Wheaton's 19th-century international comity[3], Schuck & Smith's consensual citizenship[2][3], and Richard Posner's national security pragmatism.
Trey,
You mentioned that "The majority has introduced or reinforced several problematic principles when it comes to interpreting and applying the Constitution." but you did not mention the problematic increased risk of Nuclear War caused by conflicting claims made by two nuclear-armed countries now claiming the same Chinese people as "citizens" See this FAQ https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md
Trey,
It is time for another article, discussing the known "Good Faith" grounds for Petition for ReHearing.
It was widely reported today [July 9, 2026] that President Trump has decided to direct his Attorneys to file a Petition for ReHearing, which requires the Attorneys to have "Good Fatith" arguments that the Supreme Court "overlooked" or "misapprehended" something ,or anything else potentially dispositive. Do you agree that the Supreme Court "overlooked" or "misapprehended" something dispositive? See draft Peitition for ReHearing at https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md
See More Details aggressive political accusations and historical proofs at https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
And see the related FAQ at https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md
Under Supreme Court Rule 44, petitions for rehearing are subject to very strict standards:
The Standard of Review: A petition for rehearing of a non-dispositive order or a judgment on the merits must briefly and specifically state its grounds, showing that the Court overlooked or misapprehended intervening circumstances of a controlling effect or other substantial grounds.
The "Good Faith" Certificate: The petition must be accompanied by a certificate of counsel stating that it is presented in good faith and not for delay.
Historical Rarity: The Supreme Court historically grants petitions for rehearing in only an extremely small fraction of cases—typically only when there has been an extraordinary change in the law, a major conflict in lower courts that developed immediately after the ruling, or a severe, undiscovered factual error in the record.
There is at least two severe, undiscovered factual errors in the Majority Opinion:
https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md
And see the related FAQ at https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md
Legal observers and news analysts have noted that the Supreme Court almost never rehears cases after handing down a merits decision, making Trump's bid Historic in itself. The President has been made aware that the Majority Opinion in Trump v. Barbara charts a course towards ThermoNuclear War. See Article 2 at https://write.as/edit/q1jc2dzd56xhp
Trump stated on TruthSocial:
"I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don't change their absolutely insane decision," Trump wrote on Truth Social.
”SCOTUSblog“CNBC noted that the court "has not agreed to rehear a ruling of a case already argued since 1965."
Donald Trump has not cited a specific legal theory for his request to the Supreme Court to rehear the birthright citizenship case,[but this draft under consideration by the President is public https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md ] instead he publicly characterizes the court's recent 6-3 ruling against his executive order as a creating an existential threat to the United States. Accord: The Supreme Court is "charting a judicial course toward open warfare with nuclear-armed foreign powers" https://write.as/edit/q1jc2dzd56xhp Trump expressed his intent to seek a rehearing immediately via a post on Truth Social, labeling the decision "absolutely insane".
The Supreme Court's June 30 decision blocked a 2025 executive order that sought to prevent children of undocumented immigrants from automatically gaining U.S. citizenship through mere fact of birth on American soil. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause applies to children born to parents who are in the United States unlawfully or temporarily. While Trump has called for a rehearing, the court's rules allow parties 25 days to petition for one based on the merits, though such requests are rarely granted. See Grounds under consideration for Grant of Trump's Petition to ReHear. https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defect in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defect in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md
The kind of majority ( of 1) that decided this issue, like the 1 SCOTUS vote that decided the Presidency of the USA ( Gore vs Bush) and the destiny of the Free World , is a common sense aberration that should be considered as well.
Ultimately, it means this was a half-baked decision that hurts the US, disrespects the historic context of the Constitution , and creates new mayhem. May it be appealed and reversed.
You said "this was a half-baked decision"
WORSE, the Decision is based ON flagrant LIES https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md and is an attack against the Sovereign Power of Congress/President to define the territorial Borders and/or to define or limit the "jurisdiction of the United States". https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
Some interesting arguments here but the text of the 14 Amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is not fundamentally about natural rights or the Declaration of Independence, but constitutional rights. The dissent makes some fair points but the majority with the text, history, and over 100 years of precedent have the stronger argument.
No. The Majority Opinion is BASED ON LIES https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md , to create the appearance of propriety.
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
That’s an interesting argument about executive power and the meaning of jurisdiction, and I agree that those questions deserve to be taken seriously. The difficulty is that your conclusion depends on the President possessing a unilateral power to waive constitutional birthright jurisdiction that has little support in the Constitution’s text, longstanding judicial precedent, or the historical evidence, which is why I remain persuaded by the majority’s reasoning.
Actually, there is historical proof that the Executive Does have Article 2 Authority to alter/waive Jurisdiction over Aliens in the US: The "Sovereign" who Waived Jurisdiction over the Aliens in Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court).was President Madison (and/or President and Congress) NOT THE COURT, and NOT THE CONSTITIUTION itself. (The Supreme Court in Exchange noted that "implied waivers" are "obligatory" but limited by judicial "interpretation" in the absence of "Treaty" or other "express waiver" which are "obligatory" without question by the Court as to the "motive" of the Sovereign).
President Trump's Executive Order expressly Declares No "Jurisdiction" over the specified classes of being-born aliens for Jus Soli purposes. Thus, it raises the prima facie question of Separation of Powers, does it EFFECT an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of Jurisdiction for purposes of Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court)
In Wong Kim Ark the Court acknowleged that "jurisdiction of the United States" can also be waived by constitutional "treaties" and mentions English Treaties that expressly waive "special jurisdiction" to prevent Jus Soli.
Documented history of English Executive Waivers of Jurdiction and Treaty-Waivers of Jus Soli are listed here in Article 3 Specification 2 and Specification 3 of this proposal. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
The key question is not whether the political branches can waive jurisdiction in particular contexts—they plainly can through doctrines like sovereign immunity, diplomacy, and treaties—but whether they can redefine the constitutional meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and those are distinct legal questions. The reason courts have consistently relied on The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon and United States v. Wong Kim Ark without reaching your conclusion is that those cases recognize limited waivers of sovereign authority in specific circumstances, not a general executive power to alter the constitutional rule governing birthright citizenship.The crucial point is that exempting someone from certain exercises of government authority is not the same thing as changing the Constitution’s definition of who is born under U.S. jurisdiction, and the latter requires constitutional—not merely executive—authority. The strength of Wong Kim Ark is that it interpreted the Citizenship Clause according to its text, the common-law understanding of birthright citizenship at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, and the historical record, making its reasoning durable for more than a century.
There is this FAQ at
https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md
that may help you to understand these issues concerning the Doctrine of Sovereign Express Waivers of Jurisdiction and its geopolitical consequences versus Trump v. Barbara.
The Petiton for Cert and Brief filed on behalf of the President make no mention of "express waiver" of Jurisdiction and contain no suggestion that the Executive Order is such an instrument. Nor is the theory mentioned in the Majority Opinion nor in any of the Dissents. Nor is it suggested in any of the Amicus Briefs.
The question of an "executive power to alter the [jurisdictional extent of the United States over aliens being-born] governing birthright citizenship" was never suggested nor considered at all....
The "express waiver" theory does not involve any claim of "executive power to alter the constitutional rule"!!
To evaluate the litigation strategy in Trump v. Barbara fairly, one must
acknowledge that neither the text of Executive Order 14160 nor the formal briefs
filed on behalf of the President framed the policy as an "express sovereign
waiver" of jurisdiction under the doctrine of The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon and Wong Kim Ark
As a matter of record, the Petition for Certiorari (filed September 26, 2025) made no mention of a sovereign waiver theory. Furthermore, the Brief for the etitioners (filed January 20, 2026) only referenced The Schooner Exchange on pages 39–40 to defend the narrow, traditional "implied" exceptions for foreign diplomats, heads of state, and sovereign vessels. The brief argued that these classes enjoy jurisdictional carve-outs while remaining physically present, rather than asserting that the Executive has a unilateral, broader power to waive civil jurisdiction over civilian populations.
However, assuming (arguendo) the administration's legal team was fully cognizant of the Schooner Exchange "express waiver" framework, their decision to steer away from it reveals a highly calculated, high-stakes litigation strategy.
The President's attorneys likely prioritized long-term constitutional permanence over a short-term, easily reversible "Executive Order" victory.
The Strategic Calculus: Permanence vs. Administrative Impermanence.
Had the administration’s attorneys argued that Executive Order 14160 was an "express waiver" of U.S. jurisdiction under the President’s Article II powers,
they would have won—or at least defended—the policy on highly transient grounds.
1. The Peril of the Administrative Swing: If the exclusion of these children from birthright citizenship depended entirely on an active, discretionary executive waiver of civil jurisdiction, the policy would remain inherently impermanent. A subsequent, opposing administration could simply revoke Executive Order 14160 on its first day in office, "un-waiving" the jurisdiction and instantly restoring automatic birthright citizenship to the children of temporary and unauthorized aliens.
2. The Bid for a Permanent Constitutional Boundary: To prevent future administrations from reversing the policy, the legal team chose to litigate the Fourteenth Amendment as a self-executing, mandatory constitutional limitation on the Citizenship Clause.
They wanted the Supreme Court to declare that, as an objective matter of constitutional text and history, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" inherently and permanently excludes the children of temporary visitors and undocumented aliens.
3. The High-Stakes Constitutional Gambit: By framing the issue as an immutable,
text-based constitutional boundary rather than an exercise of Article 2 executive discretion, the administration gambled on a total victory. If the Supreme Court agreed with their interpretation of the default constitutional text, the ruling would be permanent, stripping future presidents and congresses of the power to restore birthright citizenship to these classes without a constitutional amendment.
Ultimately, the administration's attorneys deliberately bypassed the flexible, executive-scale Article 2 "express" sovereign "waiver" argument. Instead of settling for a temporary policy defense that could be undone by the next president, they designed their arguments to force a permanent, structural reinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment—accepting the high risk of a judicial defeat in pursuit of an irreversible constitutional legacy.
"The reason courts have consistently relied on The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon and United States v. Wong Kim Ark without reaching your conclusion" is simply because THERE HAS NEVER BEEN a prior case in which Congress or President purported to DECLARE AN EXPRESS WAIVER, and because they are like MONKEYS WHO CANNOT READ.
The reason courts and commentators in 2026 have relied on "implied waiver" aspect of The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to reject the President's express limitations on birthright citizenship—without considering the full scope of executive authority—stems from a fundamental failure to distinguish between default territorial jurisdiction and an express sovereign waiver.
Prior to recent executive and legislative actions, the judiciary had never been presented with a case where the political branches—either the President exercising Article II authority or Congress acting under Article I—purported to expressly, unilaterally, and prospectively waive civil and territorial jurisdiction over children being-born on U.S. soil to specified classes of aliens (such as temporary or unlawfully present non-citizens) at the exact moment of birth.
In The Schooner Exchange, Chief Justice John Marshall established that while a nation's territorial jurisdiction is "absolute and exclusive," any exemptions from that jurisdiction (such as those granted to foreign sovereign vessels) are matters of sovereign consent, which are typically implied by international comity unless the political branches "expressly" declare otherwise. Similarly, in Wong Kim Ark, the Court applied the default common-law rule of jus soli (territorial birthright citizenship) precisely because the political branches had not enacted any affirmative, express waiver (The court found no existing "Treaty" applicable to the jurisdiction of the United States over Chinese persons "born") relinquishing Jus Soli jurisdiction over the children of resident aliens. Because both foundational cases operated in the absolute absence of an "express" political declaration, modern courts have mistaken a historical absence of "express" political action for a lack of constitutional authority in 2026.
This unquestioning reliance on default rules mirrors the famous Stephenson "Five Monkeys" ladder experiment (often cited in organizational psychology). In the experiment's parable, a group of primates is conditioned via a cold-water spray to avoid a ladder leading to a bunch of bananas. Over time, the original monkeys are systematically replaced with new ones who have never experienced the water spray. Despite the threat being entirely removed, the group continues to aggressively pull down and punish any newcomer who attempts to climb the ladder. If the monkeys could explain their behavior, or write and read, their only rationale would be, "We don't do that here; it's just the way it has always been done."
By treating the default holdings of Wong Kim Ark and The Schooner Exchange as absolute, unalterable barriers to executive or legislative policy, modern attorneys and judges behave like the conditioned primates in the experiment. They zealously guard the ladder of precedent, completely unaware that the restriction they are enforcing was always contingent on the silence of the political branches, and that an "express", unilateral waiver of jurisdiction by the sovereign is an "obligatory" mandate that fundamentally reshapes the constitutional equation.
The phenomenon of legal professionals and jurists treating a historically conditioned, default state of affairs as an immutable constitutional absolute is a form of cognitive anchoring and learned helplessness.
In psychology and behavioral science, several classic analogies illustrate how subjects become conditioned to accept artificial limitations, continuing to respect those boundaries long after the underlying constraints have changed or disappeared. These metaphors map directly onto the legal community’s unexamined reliance on default precedents.
1. The Elephant and the Peg:
Learned Helplessness and Structural Inertia
In training camps, a baby elephant is tied to a wooden peg driven deep into the ground using a thick, heavy rope. The calf lacks the physical strength to break the rope or pull up the peg, and after repeated struggles, it eventually stops trying.
As the elephant grows into a multi-ton adult possessing the brute strength to easily uproot trees, it remains tethered by the exact same thin rope and small wooden peg. The adult elephant makes no attempt to escape because it remains mentally anchored to the physical limitations of its infancy.
The Legal Parallel:
During their formative legal education (the "calf" stage), lawyers and judges are trained to view United States v. Wong Kim Ark as an unshakeable, absolute pillar of constitutional law. They are taught that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a simple, broad territorial test that cannot be modified.
Because of this early conditioning, the legal profession behaves like the adult elephant. They possess the immense constitutional "muscle" of the political branches—namely, the sovereign authority to declare an express waiver of civil jurisdiction under Article I or Article II—yet they remain tethered to a weak, simplistic reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. They refuse to test the rope because they assume the limitations taught to them in law school remain absolute.
2. The Flea in the Jar:
Acclimated Limits and the Removed Barrier
If you place fleas inside a glass jar, they will immediately jump to escape. However, if you place a lid on the jar, the fleas will repeatedly collide with the lid. Within a short period, the fleas adjust their jump height to land just beneath the glass ceiling to avoid the painful impact.
Crucially, when the lid is completely removed, the fleas continue to jump only to that pre-conditioned height. They never escape the jar, and even their offspring learn to mimic the same restricted jump, remaining trapped within an open container.
The Legal Parallel:
The "lid" represents the historic lack of political action. For over a century, because no President or Congress had declared an express waiver, the constitutional ceiling of birthright citizenship appeared completely solid and low. The legal community acclimated to this low ceiling, shaping all litigation and arguments around the assumption that the "lid" was a permanent fixture.
When a President or Congress introduces an express waiver, they are effectively removing the lid. Yet, instead of leaping into the newly opened legal space (the recognition that sovereign consent governs civil jurisdiction), the appellate bar and the judiciary continue to jump only to the height of the old ceiling, arguing Wong Kim Ark within the exact same narrow, pre-conditioned parameters.
" those cases recognize limited waivers of sovereign authority in specific circumstances," Both of Schooner Exchange and Wong Kim Ark specifically noted the ABSENCE of a "TREATY" purporting to prescribe a waiver of jurisidction in each case. It is an accident of History merely that there are no Express Waivers in the caselaw. Does Congress lose its Sovereign Power to define jurisdiction merely because of happenstance in history?
And:
The Citizenship Clause does not confer upon an alien an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT TO BE "born".
The Citizenship Clause does not confer upon an alien an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT TO BE "born within the United States".
The Citizenship Clause does not confer upon an alien an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT TO BE "born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States".
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not affirmatively "guarantee" that the US Border will not be changed to draw the line outide the Hospital.
There is no command in the Citizenship Clause that "all persons born in the United States shall be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"!!!! The Citizenship Clause does not state "Nor shall congress enact a law respecting a change to the jurisdiction of the United States"
There is nothing but overreaching judicial fiat in Trump v. Barbara that imagines a limitation of the sovereign power of the Congress/President to make a Treaty of Extraterritoriality with China to prevent its Jus Sanguinis citizens from being claimed and protected by the United States.
Moreover, Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court) instructs that a "waiver" of jurisdiction can only be found within the "consent" of the "sovereign" which has "absolute" power to waive or not waive its jurisdiction, and that the Supreme Court is not the Sovereign. The consent of the United States to waive jurisdiction of the United States over "foreign diplomats" is a STATUTORY/TREATY consent of the Sovereign. The United States has sovereign power to assert its jurisdiction of the United States over "foreign diplomats" (in fact Article 3 of the US Constitution states this positive jurisdiction explicitly. e.g., grant of original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases affecting ambassadors and consuls). The Supreme Court cannot compel the sovereign to waive jurisdiction over "foreign diplomats", and insofar as its opinion in Trump v. Barbara purports to construct a "constitutional" restraint upon the Congress's power to waive or not waive jurisdiction over "foreign diplomats, that is a usurpation.
I don’t think this addresses my previous point, which was that the legal issue is not whether the political branches can waive jurisdiction in specific contexts like diplomatic immunity, but whether they can redefine the constitutional meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and The Schooner Exchange does not establish that broader proposition. Your argument continues to treat sovereign waivers in foreign affairs as if they are equivalent to changing a constitutional rule governing birthright citizenship, but that is precisely the distinction recognized in Wong Kim Ark and why the analogy does not carry the weight you assign to it. respectfully, why does this particular decision matters so much to you and why its implications for immigration and birthright citizenship are such a concern?
I do not see any logical basis for your repeated contention that an express sovereigb waiver (by the Congress and/or President) of "jurisidiction of the United States" over aliens being-born within the United States "equivalent to changing a constitutional rule governing birthright citizenship"
The Citizenship Clause establishes an simple IF/THEN rule: IF (alien is born within and subject to the jurisidiction of the United States) THEN (born as a "citizen of the United States")
This Conditional Rule does not purport to confer any Affirmative Right upon an alien to be "born within the United States. A Treaty that moves the Boundary of the United States Territory around the Hospital or Place of Birth violates no constitutional right of the alien giving birth nor of the alien being born.
This Conditional Rule does not purport to confer any Affirmative Right upon an alien to be "born subject to the United States". A Treaty that removes the Jurisdiction of the United States Territory over the alien being born violates no constitutional right of the alien giving birth nor of the alien being born.
Wong Kim Ark is not to the contrary. And Wong Kim Ark specifically reports that the Supreme Court examined the existing TREATIES between US and China lookig for an "obligatory" waiver of jurisdiction, and the Court decided that those existing treaties did not purport to waive the Jurisdiction of the United States over Chinese being "born" within the United States, as opposed to "naturalized"
Is there still a disagreement in some aspect of your perception of the issues?
"why does this particular decision matters so much to you and why its implications for immigration and birthright citizenship are such a concern"? Please read trough the provided link
https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
and you will understand the importance of the Court-mandated assertion of Jus Soli/Jurisdiction goes beyond the best interests of the aliens. The War of 1812 was caused by the conflicting claims by English and American sovereigns over US citizens. The US Supreme Court has charted a course for Nuclear War with China by aggressively claiming that will-be Millions of Chinese Nationals raised and domiciled in China are "US Citizens" that the US is obligated to "protect" by diplomatic and military force from the Chinese Government.
Please read Article 2 of https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
Quote: "the legal issue is not whether the political branches can waive jurisdiction in specific contexts like diplomatic immunity". Actually that is also a part of it. According to overreaching Trump v. Barbara dictum, the political branches can NOT repeal a statutory waiver jurisdiction in specific contexts like diplomatic immunity in such a way that applies US jurisdiction and citizenship to the children of foreign diplomats. The Majority's dictum locks the Political Branches out of the Sovereign Power to assert such "jurisdiction of the United States". This cuts the other way, but illustrates the illegitmacy of the Court's dictum.
"Your argument continues to treat sovereign waivers in foreign affairs as if they are equivalent to changing a constitutional rule governing birthright citizenship, but that is precisely the distinction recognized in Wong Kim Ark"
If the Constutition states: All persons born within the United States under shade of a Oak Tree are citizens of the United States.... And the President of the United States by Executive Order claims Eminent Domain over all such trees and he chops down all the Oak Trees within the United States (such that no aliens can thereafter claim birthright citizenship) DID THE PRESIDENT " "chang[e] a constitutional rule governing birthright citizenship" or did he simply take an Executive Action that reduced the aliens' opportunity for the Conditions specified in the Rule to occur "within the United States"? You really need to think harder about the meaning of "rule" and "condition" and cause-and-effect occurrences.
The Schooner Exchange Doctrine existed prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and assumes that "jurisdiction of the country" is regulated by the "express or implied" "consent" of the "sovereign" without regard for the desires of "individual" aliens. The Fourteenth Amendment does not purport to change the Sovereign power to "waive" or assert "jurisdiction of the United States" over aliens (other rules in the Constitution prevent the President from waiving Jurisdiction over citizens). Aliens have zero affirmative rights as-against the sovereign United States before and after the 14th Amendment.
?? What is the "constitutional" definition of "within the United States"? It means on territory relative to wherever the US Border happens to be at the time of the "born" event. The 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause ratified in 1868 does not exclude Hawaii and Alaska does it? If the US cedes California or Texas back to Mexico in 2028, will the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause continue to vest persons born in Mexico with US Citizenship? No. That would be Stupid.
It is also beyond nonsensical to imagine that the words "jurisdiction of the United States" is a fixed jurisdiction that cannot be changed by Congress/President. The 14th Amendment clearly does not state "and subect to such Jurisdiction as the United States had not expressly or impliedly waived in 1868".
the "constitutional" meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction”, the Supreme Court stated in Wong Kim Ark and again in Trump v Barbara is: AS DEFINED IN Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court).
The Legal Path from the words "subject to the Jurisdiction" to recognizing the existence of an "Express Waiver" consists of merely READING the decision in Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812) where it states that "jurisdiction" can be wavied by "express or implied" waiver and that such a waiver is "obligatory" upon the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court has in Trump v. Barbara arbitrarily and totally ignored the dispositive part of Schooner Exchange holding that "jurisdiction" can be wavied by "express or implied" waiver and that such a waiver is "obligatory" upon the Supreme Court of the United States. [Hence, the proposed Articles of Impeachment at https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md ]
You’re treating every use of the word “jurisdiction” in constitutional law as though it means the same thing, but The Schooner Exchange concerned the government’s discretionary exercise of sovereign authority over foreign ships while the Fourteenth Amendment concerns the constitutional status of persons born under U.S. sovereignty, so your entire argument rests on conflating two distinct legal concepts rather than showing that one controls the other.
No, I am not. The Decision in Trump v. Barbara itself expressly states that the phrase "subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States" is DEFINED THE SAME AS the words "Jurisdiction of the country" is defined in and AS-LIMITED by implied "WAIVERs" described in "The Schooner Exchange". The Majority Opinion confirms the correctness of my statements, but simply IGNORES the existence of the "express waiver" branch of the "express or implied" waiver Doctrine of The Schooner Exchange. The entire 26-page Majority Opinion does not even one time include the word "express".
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_new_5if6.pdf
You suppose that: "The Schooner Exchange concerned the government’s discretionary exercise of sovereign authority over foreign ships"
Correction: The Schooner Exchange concerned the government’s discretionary exercise of sovereign authority over [ALIENS on] foreign ships" in US ports, and dicussed "general principles" that apply to "private" "individual" Aliens walking around on US land, and the Trump v. Barbara Opinion itself quotes the example of "individual" ALIENS walking on land having only an "implied license" from the sovereign and only having possibly an "implied waiver". The Schooner Exchange decision expressly mentions that there is NO EXPRESS "TREATY" involved in the facts of the case to define the extent of the Waiver by the Sovereign.
I appreciate that you are trying to find a rational reason for the Supreme Court's total disregard of the "express sovereign waiver" argument, but really there is no "rational" reason for that Omission. You want to believe that the Attorneys and the Supreme Court of the United States are COMPETENT and RATIONAL, but that is simpy not the reality of this case.
Appreciate the response but we have to just agree to disagree. We are also probably just talking past each other anyway. I don't believe the Constitution leaves the political branches free to redefine the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction," whereas I think Wong Kim Ark correctly held that the Fourteenth Amendment itself fixed the constitutional meaning of that phrase, leaving Congress and the President free to waive the exercise of jurisdiction in particular cases but not to redefine who is constitutionally born under it. I agree that "within the United States" changes when sovereign territory changes—as with Alaska, Hawaii, or a hypothetical territorial cession—but that is different from changing the constitutional status of people born on territory that is unquestionably within the United States at the time of birth, which is the issue here. I get why you believe the stakes are significant, but I don't see evidence that recognizing birthright citizenship creates the geopolitical dangers you describe, and I remain unconvinced that The Schooner Exchange can override the constitutional rule that the Supreme Court recognized in Wong Kim Ark. Roberts was correct to emphasize that the Citizenship Clause first requires birth "in the United States," with the jurisdiction language operating as a narrow exception for historically recognized categories like diplomats and invading armies, rather than as a broad grant of power allowing the political branches to redefine the constitutional rule itself. That's the whole ball game. Thomas and Alito's opinions were wrong because they too narrowly focused on the jurisdiction exception while giving insufficient weight to the Clause's opening command that all persons born in the United States are citizens unless they fall within those historically understood exceptions.
Does the decision allow a mother here illegally to remain? What is THE LAW?
Quote: "Does the decision allow a mother here illegally to remain?" The Court's creation of Anchor Baby "US Citizen" status for illegal alien mothers imposes administrative/discretionary burdens upon the US Government at time of Deportation orders. They illegal alien can argue their deportation would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their U.S. citizen (or Lawful Permanent Resident) child. A child's U.S. citizenship can significantly impact the deportation process by opening up specific avenues of legal defense, administrative relief, or prosecutorial discretion.
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
Thx for this. So bozoberg and similar judges can open the floodgates? Love your handle
You are welcome to https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md , but also read the proposed ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT which are more detailed and strongly worded. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md These links and texts need to be brought to the Attention of Congress (for Impeachment, to ratify Treaties), the President (to file Motion for ReHearing, sign Treaties), and the President's Attorneys ASAP, like using X, email, Youtube etc. There are only about 17 days left to file a Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara.
This post says a whole lot of nothing. Little is more clearly established in the law and practice than that being born in the country makes you a citizen. This writer is an idiot.
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
LOL. Coping hard aren’t we? Trump has the right to “waive” jurisdiction for the “millisecond” after birth for anyone he wants? The President can unilaterally declare anyone he likes not a citizen at birth? Sure. Good luck with that theory. You are just further proof that the people who think this way are mentally ill.
Your hyperbole is inaccurate and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the significance of US citizenship. Once a person has been condemned to being "born ... subject to the jurisdiction" they will forever carry the oppressive burdens of US Citizenship including Global Tax Liability, global liability for violating US laws, Global liability to be extradicted back to the United States, and Global liability to be conscripted to serve in the US military. And, with US citizenship comes the Government having the "Jus Sanguinis" ownership of your children wherever they are born in the world. Thus, once condemned to being a US citizen, you are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" and so are your children. The children of US citizens are always "born ... subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" Minor v. Happersett | 88 U.S. 162 (1874) [unless a statute relieves the family of that oppressive burden.
"There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the Fourteenth Amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." But in our opinion it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption, the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several states, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. ... Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were."
...
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their
Page 88 U. S. 168
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett | 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
Further, the Article 1 and Article 2 Comity Power to Waive Jurisdiction is limited to undomiciled "aliens", not citizens, so not "for anyone he wants". Further, the President has discretion to DEPORT any such pregnant illegal alien and that necessarily includes the physical power to prevent a pregnant alien from giving birth. And, the Government is entitled to exercise discretion to terminate the pregnancy of any alien woman who is incarcerated? So, there always was, always will be, the absolute and arbitary power of the President to prevent a citizenship from vesting in the child of an illegal alien. See https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md
Why should a foreign sovereign have more power than the US President to control whether an alien born on US soil obtains US citizenshiP? This is a serious question. A foreign sovereign can withdraw diplomatic papers from its ambassador without notice, during the birth of his child for example, subjecting the former ambasador and his child to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Why can't the US President likewise say to the foreign sovereign, no thanks, keep this alien communist baby and leave, we don't want or need it to rule over us here in America?
What about the mother?
"What about the mother?" Clarify.... And, maybe see this FAQ before you repeat the question with greater clarity. https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md
I respect Amy Coney Barrett as near equally as I do Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
It will be troubling to find them on opposite sides of what constitutes truth.
Surely Barrett should not be seen as declaring what she wishes was the law, but as what IS the law.
By aggressively claiming Chinese nationals also claimbed by China under Jus Sanguinis, Barret is helping to ignite a Nuclear War with China. See ARTICLE 2 of draft ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT at https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
The published draft Petition for ReHearing in Trump v. Barbara https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md identifies the core defects in the Majority Opinion: 1) The President's Executive Order was a valid exercise of his Article 2 power of Comity to Declare an "EXPRESS WAIVER" of THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States; 2) The Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause does NOT purport to create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT of an ALIEN TO BE "born within the United States" nor does that Clause create an AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT to an ALIEN to be "born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. Thus the Congress clearly has the Article 1 Power to WAIVE JURISDICTION over specified aliens being-born within the United States. In the absence of such a Statute, the President has the exclusive Article 2 Power of Comity to EXPRESSLY WAIVE the JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES over the specified aliens being-born within the United States. The History of England and United States both show that such a sovereign power (to Waive Jus Soli Jurisdiction over aliens) was frequently exercised in Executive Orders and in Treaties signed by England or by the United States.
"Barret is helping to ignite a Nuclear War with China."
Is that on Barrett????
I'm sure there are myriad things that you can say any justice "is helping" by simply declaring what the laws clearly say.
The SCOTUS decides on many 'controversial' issues.
When an armed man was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home in Maryland, does that mean a wrong decision was made?
Or let's take a more widely celebrated case.
Brown v. Board of Education
The ruling ignited a decades-long period of violent backlash across the American South, known as "Massive Resistance."
Did the justices on the 1954 court "help ignite violence"?
The War of 1812 was ignited and fought over competing claims Jus Soli versus Jus Sanguinis made by English and United States goverments over men's able bodies. (e.g., Impressment of American Seamen claimed by English to be subjects of the King)
England and the United States avoided such wars with lesser nations by compelling weaker nations to expressly waive Jus Soli jurisdiction over the children of American/English travelers or merchants residing in the treaty-signatory's territory. See list of such treaties in Article 2 of https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
Now, Nuclear Weapons make some nations super-powers that simply should not be asserting conflicting claims (Jus Soli versus Jus Sanguinis) over each other's citizen's children in a manner likely to incite foreseeable conflicts or wars (like War of 1812)
Now, without any explicilt mention of the "War of 1812", nor any mention of "China", the Supreme Court has compelled the United States to assert Jus Soli claims against China's Jus Sanguinis children (of Chinese Tourists, Students, athetes, tech workers etc) visiting the United States by simply ENTIRELY IGNORING the "Sovereign Express Waiver" Doctrine of Schooner Exchange and Wong Kim Ark. See this FAQ https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md
To SILENTLY subvert the sovereign power of the United States and to SILENTLY OVERRULE the Sovereign "Express Waiver" doctrine of Wong Kim Ark in this manner is a CRIMINAL ACT by the Judges, for which they should be IMPEACHED: Articles of Impeachment https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
The Judges criminality of the Justices is aggravated by their STEALTH (without any explicilt mention of the "War of 1812", nor any mention of "China", nor the word "express" or "express waiver"), which amounts to Fraudulent Concealment and Common Law PERJURY.
When a Ruler has a choice between two alternatives, one of which is promoted by the LEFT/Democrats/Women, and one of which tends to avoid precipitating a Global ThermoNuclear War, and the Ruler choses the direction preferred by Women, the People and History can rightfully condemn that Ruler as a Tyrant and as a Mad Man. https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
P.S. It was widely reported today [July 9, 2026] that President Trump has decided to file direct his Attorneys to file a Petition for ReHearing, which requires the Attorneys to have "Good Fatith" Arguments that the Supreme Court "overlooked" or "misapprehended" something dispositive. Do you agree that the Supreme Court "overlooked" or "misapprehended" something dispositive? See draft Peitition for ReHearing at https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md More Detail at https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
Under Supreme Court Rule 44, petitions for rehearing are subject to very strict standards:
The Standard of Review: A petition for rehearing of a non-dispositive order or a judgment on the merits must briefly and specifically state its grounds, showing that the Court overlooked or misapprehended intervening circumstances of a controlling effect or other substantial grounds.
The "Good Faith" Certificate: The petition must be accompanied by a certificate of counsel stating that it is presented in good faith and not for delay.
Historical Rarity: The Supreme Court historically grants petitions for rehearing in only an extremely small fraction of cases—typically only when there has been an extraordinary change in the law, a major conflict in lower courts that developed immediately after the ruling, or a severe, undiscovered factual error in the record.
There is at least two severe, undiscovered factual errors in the Majority Opinion:
https://write.as/q1jc2dzd56xhp.md
https://write.as/6j8azq11mfs94.md
The FAQ https://write.as/0yshqzd1c8mvo.md states:
6C. Did the Majority in Trump v. Barbara intend to create these "potentially extinction-level geopolitical risks"?
Yes. The Dissenters explicitly warned the Majority that they were requiring the United States to “protect” Chinese aliens being raised “abroad” from the Chinese government, and that they are providing material support (special “US citizen” soldiers) to the enemies of the United States, and deep “Spies” in future “wars”:
>Fourth, domicile determined which government owed a person protection when he went abroad. As this Court explained, “[t]he American citizen who goes into a foreign country... is... entitled to the protection of our government.” Schooner Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch, at 120;
[Dissent of THOMAS, P. 17]
>The Court’s decision to hold the Citizenship Order facially unconstitutional, in other words, makes it unlawful for the President to enforce the Order against a single person. He cannot enforce the Order against a child of an alien enemy or a child of a foreign spy. He cannot even enforce the Order against children who are raised in foreign countries, join foreign armies, and fight wars against the United States. The Court, without considering any of these individual circumstances, holds unconstitutional the application of the Citizenship Order in all of them. ...
>In my view, the Citizenship Order is not facially unconstitutional. The Order is consistent with the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause, at least insofar as it applies to children born to parents, here lawfully or unlawfully, who are not domiciled in the United States. The Citizenship Clause was enacted for people who were born in this country and called it home.
[Dissent of THOMAS, P.56]
>The Court’s interpretation is not only contrary to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it produces grotesque results ... The Court’s interpretation also has national-security implications. Accord, ante, at 56 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Suppose that a person’s only connection to this country is that he was born here to a mother who was present just long enough to give birth and then quickly returned to her native country. Suppose that country is a strategic adversary or enemy of the United States. Suppose the child never visited the United States while growing up and was inculcated with hatred of this country. According to the Court, that person is a citizen of the United States. He can enter and leave the country as he pleases. He can travel the world on a United States passport. Even if he plots to harm this country, he cannot be deprived of his status as a citizen, at least under current precedent. See Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U. S. 252, 259–260 (1980).
[Dissent of ALITO, P. 38-39]