Transcript
Mark Levin (0:00)
It's all quiet in the underground bunker, doors closed, locks bolted. But the great one isn't just resting on his laurels. He's making sure your weekend is even better by giving you his best. This is the best of Mark Levin.
Mark Levin (0:19)
Welcome to the program. So I did the Sunday show. I hope you all were able to watch it on Fox Life, Liberty and Levin. And the opening was a little different than people expected, was on Birthright Citizenship, which I had not had an opportunity to discuss again on Fox, even though I had two or three times earlier in my career there, because that decision will be coming down and when it comes down, it's going to be a big deal. And there was nothing else I could say about the fantastic effort, successful effort by the administration, by our military to retrieve the second pilot. We'll get into that later. But rather than just repeating all the news that was known and a lot wasn't known by then, just certain amounts of information gotten out, I just thought I should go ahead and proceed. And so I decided in preparing that monologue last night, I wanted this to be in as plain of English as possible so even a Supreme Court justice could understand, even a leftist could understand, even the media can understand the absolute hoax that is birthright citizenship. And I've done it with you folks, and I've done it with the Levin Liberty's Voice video podcast. And I've done it before on fox, but I decided really, really make it granular, textual, make it as understandable as possible. And I did that for 20 minutes. And I went through carefully, slowly with the highlights of the 1866 civil rights decision. Who were the authors of that act? I should say, who were the authors of that act? Why was it passed in the first place? And gave the history surrounding it and the environment surrounding the passing of that act. And then it had been vetoed by the then President Johnson, a Democrat who became president as vice president when Lincoln was assassinated. And why was that important at the time? And so then we discussed the authors of the 14th amendment and why did they decide to have a 14th amendment and the history surrounding that and what the people involved in it had to say. And then I went to the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, I went to the language of the 14th amendment and they tell us what it meant. And I explained, as I have with you, that you don't have to go to Blackstone, you don't have to go to English common law, you don't have to go anywhere except what's right in front of you, that's what constitutional conservatism is all about. That's what originalism is all about. That's why we're not right wingers, we're not left wingers, we're not wingers at all. That is the press, that is modern day academia trying to pigeonhole you and me as something that we're not and push us over into the corner and, and they pretend to be the center of the action. We're the center of the action. We're the core of what the people who founded this country believe. We are you and me. And so we walked through it and the President watched it. He thought it was fabulous. He posted on it, he was encouraging everybody to watch it, including Supreme Court justices. And the media was furious. They were furious. And so we have headlines like, let's see Mediaite. I've told you about this site before, with the exception of one or two people, really is a slop site. Trump tells SCOTUS to study Mark Levinch on Money Making Birthright hoax Then picked up by their sort of inbreds, these leftist sites panicked. Trump 79 rages at Supreme Court in 1am and meltdown. Newsweek. Donald Trump says Supreme Court should base decision on Fox News host And the headlines were all like this, just dismissive because the media are partisan, they're activists, they're left wing, they hate the Constitution, they hate the president, they hate you, Mr. And Mrs. America. They say better things about Hamas and Hamas supporters in this country and Iran and Iran supporters in this country than they do about you. Than they do about you. So part of the problem we have obviously is there are people who aren't really focused in on these things. And so they read headlines and they read some of these reports on what's taking place because the press are supposed to be a source of information, of news, but they're not. They're not. Donald Trump says Supreme Court should base decision on Fox News host Newsweek. Donald Trump was not talking about the Fox News host. He was talking about what the Fox News host had to say. And there's not a thing in that Newsweek article that contradicts, counters, challenges anything that I said. Nothing in Mediaite. They lied and they distorted and they deceived. They said it's been the long standing position of the Supreme Court that birthright citizenship applies. We're talking about illegal alien children. The Supreme Court's never even ruled on that ever. There's no federal statute on that ever. Talking about birthright citizenship. And so here you have a so called reporter who's a complete liar. But rather than take on what I argued and what I stated, the substance of it was some counter arguments. They had none. It reminded me of most of the justices during the hearing last week. If they had a single example, just one, one, than any of the authors of the 1866 Civil Rights act, which was the precursor, which really the motivator behind the 14th Amendment, or if they had a single statement by anybody who was involved in the 14th Amendment promoting the idea of universal citizenship to anybody born into the United States, including illegal aliens. Let's see it. Let's hear it. There's nothing. Zero. There was no such thing as illegal aliens back then because they didn't have immigration laws of much of much to speak of. So they didn't counter the Solicitor General of the United States when he was arguing, although he went off in the same areas. I wouldn't have. But nonetheless, I'm just staying focused. They went off the things like, if it's the intent of the illegal alien who comes into the country or any alien that comes into the country, that the United States should be their domicile, therefore allegiance to the United States. How do we know their intent? We have to go through all this due process stuff. And I thought to myself, what does that have to do with anything? When you were ruling on the tariff issue, you weren't concerned about how complicated it would be to return funds to individuals and how that would work, work out. Not one of them said a damn thing about it. Stay focused on the Constitution and the law and your damn job. What does the Constitution say about birthright citizenship? Not a damn thing. Zero. Zero. And they knew exactly what was meant by the jurisdiction thereof. Based on the earlier writings two years before the Civil Rights act of 1866. They knew exactly what they were talking about, and yet they pretend they don't. You want to know why? Because they're cowards. Other than Alito, who was clear, other than Thomas, who was clear, Gorsuch seemed wobbly. Kavanaugh seemed wobbly. I don't know where this is going to wind up, but I will tell you this. If they constitutionalize something that doesn't exist in the Constitution, that means Congress can't do anything other than pass an amendment to the Constitution. You see how the Congress is divided? That will never happen. Convention of states. We're a ways off from having a convention of states. Then what the Supreme Court will do is what no Congress has ever done. And what's that? Voted to make birthright citizenship the law. In fact, by the Supreme Court upholding it. If they do, if they should, then it is enshrined in the Constitution. There's absolutely no basis for that. None. Now, the consequences if they do that are monumental, catastrophic, inescapable. That means every child born in the United States of aliens or illegal aliens, with minor, minor exceptions that are irrelevant here, will be an American citizen. Now, you can imagine, especially in a Democrat administration, how they'll open the borders and how many people will come into the country and have children. Now, for the Communist Chinese, it'll be a heyday because they've already sent tens of thousands of pregnant women to Chinese citizens into the United States, giving birth to babies who become US Citizens, then leaving the United States with their babies, bringing them back to China, and then they'll become adults, then they'll send them back to the United States while the government there and they'll have all the rights of American citizens. They'll be able to work on Silicon Valley, they'll be able to work on top secret plans, they'll be able to work in the military, they'll be able to run for governmental positions, and who are they going to represent? And when presented with something akin to that, the Chief justice of the United States said, that's not what we're deciding on today. So I went through all this and more and the best news we could do is Donald Trump says Supreme Court should base decision on Fox News host. That's the best they could do. That's the best they could do. Mediaite Trump tells SCOTUS to study Mark Levin show on money making Birthright hoax. Like 14 different topics in the one run on sentence there for the title. And the rest were no different. The rest were no different. So rather than have any legitimate pushback, I'm not talking about sloganeering, lying and deceiving. I'm talking about tell me who said birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Tell me. Nobody tell me what they meant by the jurisdiction thereof. I told them. I told them what two of the authors, two of the authors of the amendment said there's no. No response. Zero. Zero. Then they point to an 1898 decision, the same Supreme Court that in 1896 issued the Plessy vs. Ferguson separate but equal as equal. That upheld segregation right up to Brown versus Board of Education in the 1950s. That court, that court ruled essentially that a father who was a naturalized citizen of the United States with a Chinese ancestry and a mother who was not, that their baby was a citizen. It was decided wrongly. That decision violated 40 years of practice. 40 years from 1868. From 1868 on 30 years of practice, I should say, to 1898. But it still didn't involve an illegal alien child. The Supreme Court's never ruled on that. So if this court constitutionalizes birthright citizenship for an illegal alien child will do something that no Congress has done, no prior Supreme Court has done that the framers of the amendment didn't promote that. The framers of the act that preceded the amendment didn't promote a term that is not in federal law, it's not codified anywhere. A term that's not found in the Constitution anywhere. They can't find a soul, they can't find a syllable that supports what they want to do. And the media treats it, treats it the way it does. And I hope the court did listen. I hope the court does listen. I hope the court does the right thing. I just don't think there's enough that had the guts to do it. Because what we're really talking about is politics and policy, not the Constitution and not the rule of law. That's what we're talking about. They will try and camouflage it, camouflage you with the Constitution. They'll tell you about English common law and this, that they'll go on and on and on. But I am telling you the truth, cutting away at all the statistics. If I've read the Constitution once, I've read it a thousand times. And I don't mean just read through it, speed reading, I mean studying it, going over it, looking at the background of the different clauses and who was involved in what. And that includes the amendments to the Constitution, especially the post Civil War amendments and the Bill of Rights before that. But that's the best the press can do. Mark the vin. As operation Epic Fury intensifies, the world braces for what's to come next. And people of faith pray for freedom and for God's people in the Holy Land to be protected. And in the Holy Land. Red alert sirens fill the air. Sirens that give you only 15 seconds to reach the nearest bomb shelter. The the situation is serious. The threat is real. And in times like this, freedom and faith aren't just abstract ideas. They are what we depend upon. And the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is on the ground preparing large scale distributions of life saving food, first aid, emergency essentials for security personnel, while helping ensure hospitals and emergency rooms and shelters are stocked with critical medical supplies. This aid is focused on Israel's most vulnerable. The sick, the elderly, children, families, families in great need. But the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews need your most generous gift today to make this work possible. So please rush your gift, which is tax deductible, by calling right away. 888-585 IFCJ. That's 888-585-IFCJ. Or online at levin for the fellowship.org that's L E V I N for the fellowship.org.
