6/30/26 - Supreme Court's Birthright Citizenship Ruling: The REAL Problem Nobody's Talking About

Summary

Mark Levin Podcast – 6/30/26: Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Ruling

Episode Date: July 1, 2026
Main Focus: Critical breakdown of the Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment, with Mark Levin and guest Hans Von Spakovsky.

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Mark Levin provides an in-depth, passionate critique of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that affirmed birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants under the 14th Amendment. Levin challenges both the majority opinion, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, and the legal and historical arguments supporting the ruling. He is joined by Hans Von Spakovsky, who offers further constitutional and historical insight. Levin aims to expose what he sees as a fundamental misreading and distortion of American history and constitutional law, while also addressing listener questions and broader implications.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background on the Supreme Court’s Ruling

• Levin sharply criticizes Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion, arguing it "rewrites American history" by grounding birthright citizenship in a misinterpretation of English common law and the intentions behind the 14th Amendment ([20:45]).
• The ruling is described as one of the "biggest, most consequential decisions" of Levin’s lifetime, with immense cultural, legal, and societal impacts ([53:06]).

“Pretty shocking. I think basically what Roberts has done is rewritten American history. That’s what he’s done.” — Mark Levin [20:45]

---

2. Analysis of the Chief Justice’s Reasoning

• Use of English Common Law:
  Roberts’ opinion relies heavily on English common law from the 1600s, specifically the notion that anyone born in the sovereign’s territory is a subject of the king ([06:28]).
  • Levin rebuts that the American framers were not beholden to English common law, selectively adopted aspects, and explicitly rejected birthright allegiance to a sovereign ([06:28], [41:09]).
• Historical Record:
  Levin asserts there is no evidence—no speeches, debates, or records—from the 14th Amendment’s framers supporting birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens ([12:07], [20:45]).

“The entirety of this opinion that Roberts puts out...is based on a false premise. And yet he needs to do this because what the hell else is he gonna base it on?” — Mark Levin [06:28]

“If he is taking the position that the framers embraced English common law...that applied to our country when it surely did not, where are all the great talkers, all the great speech makers...where were they standing up and saying this was their position on birthright citizenship? There is not one.” — Mark Levin [12:07]

---

3. Levin on the True Intent of the 14th Amendment

• Levin explains that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were meant to guarantee the rights of freed black slaves—not to confer citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants ([12:07], [28:29]).
• He accuses Roberts and the majority of “dumbing down the purpose” of Reconstruction and misrepresenting the focus of the amendments ([28:29]).

“We’re dumbing down the purpose of all these actions that took place. It had nothing to do with...the children of illegal aliens.” — Mark Levin [28:29]

---

4. Dissecting the Term “Jurisdiction”

• Levin contends the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment means more than mere physical presence—requiring allegiance, domicile, and full legal obligation to the United States ([16:45], [63:54]).
• He points out historical insistence by key framers (Trumbull, Howard, Williams, Fessenden) that “jurisdiction” excluded children of foreigners, temporary visitors, diplomats, or tribes not fully subject to U.S. law ([63:54]).

“The language states the following in the amendment. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. Notice they didn’t leave it at all persons born...they added the language, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’” — Mark Levin [16:45]

---

5. Criticisms of the Court and Media

• Levin accuses Roberts and Barrett of “judicial activism” and suggests Kavanaugh dodged the constitutional issue ([20:45], [28:29]).
• He and Von Spakovsky highlight how broadcast legal commentators fail to discuss these constitutional details ([44:34]).

---

6. Guest Segment – Hans Von Spakovsky (Advancing American Freedom) ([40:28]–[59:00])

• Von Spakovsky agrees with Levin, calling Alito and Thomas’ dissents “some of the best dissents they have ever...written” ([44:49]).
• Emphasizes Roberts’ historical errors and misleading citations—e.g., misusing words from Frederick Douglass and framers like Bingham, Trumbull, and Howard ([43:31], [45:59]).
• Discusses Roberts’ tendency to avoid controversy at the expense of principle (with an analogy to the Obamacare ruling) ([48:18], [51:50]).
• Skeptical about prospects for a constitutional amendment to fix the decision.

“Justice Alito and Justice Thomas eviscerate Roberts’ opinion...they point out Roberts got our history, and particularly the history of the 14th Amendment, completely wrong.” — Hans Von Spakovsky [40:28]

“Roberts invokes Frederick Douglass...but Thomas points out that Douglass argued that blacks were citizens because...they weren’t aliens or strangers. That is not the case with aliens who are here illegally.” — Hans Von Spakovsky [43:31]

---

7. The Path Forward & The Difficulty of Constitutional Amendment

• Levin repeatedly notes the practical impossibility of amending the Constitution in today’s polarized climate ([02:14],[57:10]).
• He proposes that the only remedy is to change the Supreme Court’s composition with constitutional conservatives, which reversed Roe v. Wade ([02:14],[57:10]).
• Von Spakovsky: “If we could replace two of the justices...then hopefully they could overturn this bad precedent.” ([57:10])

---

8. Listener Questions and Policy Concerns

• Several callers express alarm over voting rights of dual citizens, potential abuse by foreign powers, and challenges to American sovereignty ([98:01]–[104:07]).
  • Example: A veteran whose foreign-born children must naturalize, yet “anchor babies” of illegal immigrants can become president ([103:01]).
  • Levin and guests confirm there is no legal mechanism to limit voting or reverse this outside of Supreme Court action ([98:36]).
• Concerns raised about naturalization fraud via medical exemptions ([106:13]), and broader immigration policy issues ([99:34]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Levin on the Ruling’s Legacy:
  “This is one of the biggest decisions in our lifetime and one of the worst...Is this how you create a country?” ([62:43])

• Von Spakovsky on Historical Error:
  “Roberts is saddling this country with an ancient British rule that even the United Kingdom has abandoned.” ([49:52])

• Levin on Political Realism:
  “We are not going to be able to amend the Constitution ... the only alternative [is] more constitutional conservatives on the court.” ([58:38])

• On Allegiance and Domicile:
  “Subject to the jurisdiction was a familiar way to describe, as Thomas writes, the relationship of a domiciliary to his home nation.” ([63:54])

---

Important Timestamps

| Segment | Timestamp | |-----------------------------------------------------|-------------| | Levin Begins Dismantling Majority Opinion | 02:14–20:45 | | Discussion on Jurisdiction and 14th Amendment | 16:45–28:29 | | Summarizing Consequences and Judicial Activism | 20:45–28:29 | | Guest: Hans Von Spakovsky Interview Begins | 40:28 | | Alito/Thomas Dissents Discussed | 44:49–47:53 | | Kavanaugh’s Middle Ground Critiqued | 45:17–45:59 | | Limits of Amendment Process Highlighted | 57:10–58:38 | | Listener Concerns: Voting, Domicile, Citizenship | 98:01–104:07| | Analogy & Hamiltonian vs. Jeffersonian Principles | 80:29–95:19 | | Closing Calls & Reflections | 106:13–111:13|

---

Episode Tone and Style

• Direct, confrontational, and analytical: Levin takes on both the Court majority and other conservative commentators (“I ain’t prepared to debate anybody...because it’s an abomination” [36:10]).
• Heavy use of constitutional vocabulary: Frequent references to “domicile,” “allegiance,” and “jurisdiction.”
• Deeply skeptical of media/legal establishment: “None of this is being told to you by a single lawyer on television...” ([25:35])
• Populist encouragement: “That’s why you’re in this audience and I’m with you. This is a very, very big deal and very troubling.” ([72:28])

---

Takeaway Summary

Mark Levin frames the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision as a massive, historically unsupported judicial overreach, contrary to the 14th Amendment’s true intent. He and Hans Von Spakovsky meticulously dissect the majority’s legal reasoning, challenge claims about common law and Reconstruction, and warn listeners about long-term sociopolitical consequences. Listeners are encouraged to resist complacency and understand the critical importance of constitutional conservatism in shaping America’s future.

---

Transcript

[Mark Levin]

Hey folks, Mark Levin here. Before we dive into today's episode, I want to talk about my go to gold and silver company. Monetary gold is over 25 years helping Americans understand physical gold and silver with an education first, no pressure approach and support for IRA eligible options. Monetary Gold has a complimentary guide. It's free to help you understand precious metals. Call them right now, 877-now-Gold or visit marklovesgold.com and request the free guide number. Make sure to ask for details. That's 877-now-Gold. Or visit marklovesgold.com performance may vary. You should always consult your financial and tax consultant. Now let's get to the show. He's here.

[Show Announcer]

He's here now. Broadcasting from the underground command post deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Lev

[Mark Levin]

Sam.

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

It.

[Mark Levin]

Hello America. Mark Levin here. Our number, 8773-8138-1187-7381, 3811. I'm not going to be as generous as my friend Hugh Hewitt or some of my other friends who've been on TV and radioed some saying what a swell job the Supreme Court did. And Robert's decision was absolutely brilliant. I spent a lot of time today going through them very, very carefully and not quickly. I will be on Hannity tonight. And I wanted to wait without appearing here and there this afternoon so I could consume it all and break it all down. A lot of people say, well, now we go to the constitutional system, the amendment process. When's the last time the Constitution has actually been amended? It's been a long time. Has it? Go ahead and Google that, Mr. Producer. You'll be surprised. When is the last time? Now we'll go ahead and Google it. You're about to find out. It's not recently, I can tell you that. You see, ladies and gentlemen, in order to have a constitutional amendment and then I'll circle back. As you know from listening to this program, there are two methods. Number one, the only methods ever actually been used, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress to adopt language for an amendment. They both have to agree on it. Then it goes to the states where the legislatures of the conventions thereof require 38 states to approve 3/4 of the states. Now how many of you think that you're even going to get anything close to two thirds of the House or Senate to change birthright citizenship? None of you, I assume. Because it's never going to happen. Then we have Convention of States, which is really a fantastic organization. I'm strongly behind it. The problem is we don't have 34 states that have signed on yet. I think we've 20 or 22, which is remarkable under the circumstances. Slow but sure. But that process isn't ready either. And then on top of that, look how everything is switched. The court just went ahead and constitutionalized something that's not in the Constitution, has never been in the Constitution, and now it's up to you and me to undo it while getting a constitutional amendment passed. So you're going to have a lot of, a lot of these senators, these Don Quixote types who are basically fraudulent. I introduced an amendment to the Constitution to do this or that, and unfortunately it's not going to go anywhere. What we need to do is if there are vacancies on the court, put constitutionalists on the court and that's how Roe was reversed. That's what's going to have to happen. I'm not talking about packing the court. We don't do that. I want to briefly go through some of the points that I made online as I went through this. I tried to put it in very plain English and very concisely on this birthright citizenship issue. But there's something fundamentally shocking. Lets start. Chief Justice Roberts begins his opinion arguing that the states and their framers relied on English common law in writing the 14th Amendment. But that isn't the whole story. They used it as a guide, but rejected it when they felt it conflicted with our constitutional system. Certainly is not a sound argument to use it as a basis for the 14th Amendment of the Civil Rights act that preceded it. They were addressing specifically the problem of some formerly Confederate states after the Civil War to recognize freed black slaves and their children as citizens with the full and equal rights enjoyed by all other citizens. Now what am I talking about there? Early on in the opinion as the foundational basis for his approach to the language in the 14th Amendment, and he returns to it later in his opinion as well. He emphasizes English common law from the 1600s. Now, English common law, he argues incorrectly, when you were born in the sovereign territory of the king of the monarchy, you were automatically a citizen for most situations. Okay, a citizen of what? A citizen to the sovereign that is a citizen to the king that was your sovereign. And so of course the king viewed anybody born in my kingdom has allegiance to me, the king. Now what's the problem with that? That's not what the founders of our country, the Framers of the Constitution said, obviously English common law from time to time, as I've wrote here, had a. Had a guiding impact on what they might do, but they abandoned it often. And they certainly didn't adopt this viewpoint when constructing the 14th Amendment in 1868 or the Civil Rights act of 1866 that preceded it. That's not how they viewed things. And so the entirety of this opinion that Roberts puts out that the majority is signed onto is based on a false premise. And yet he needs to do this, because what the hell else is he gonna base it on? I'll explain it. Let me go on. Now, he references, interestingly, Thomas Paine and some of the others. And I say I'm a huge fan of Thomas Paine, but his powers of persuasion during the Revolutionary War had little to nothing to do with the formulation of the 14th Amendment. Roberts creates a hodgepodge of references to make what is basically argument. Looking for founding principles. He must. For the truth is, this case was so straightforward and the facts and history so clear, the majority had to do what lawyers do when the facts and the history against them create contrivances. Now, this part of Roberts opinion is especially absurd. The abominable Dred Scott decision. The abominable Dred Scott decision had nothing to do with immigration, let alone illegal immigration. It held that freed blacks and black slaves were not citizens, and Congress could not even ban slavery in federal territories, thereby upending the Missouri Compromise. This would lead in great part to the Civil War, which also had nothing to do with immigration, let alone illegal immigration. And I write, as I continue reading the Roberts opinion, that is the Court's decision. It does a grave injustice to the purpose of all constitutional, legal, political, and ultimately military conflict aimed at dealing with and then ending the enslavement of black people. Instead, it attempts to create more generalized policy and legal arguments that are simply deceiving. That terrible wrong was the enslavement of black people, not some immigration policy. That's what was at issue. The only purpose of the Civil Rights act of 1866 was to use the power of the federal government to confer on all former black slaves and their progeny the same rights that applied to all other citizens because of continuing resistance in the former Confederate States. That's why it was called a Civil Rights act, not an immigration act. When President Andrew Johnson vetoed, was clear to the Republicans that they needed to enshrine it into the Constitution. Thus was born the 14th amendment. As Roberts continues moving through his decision, he again appeals to English common law as the basis for the 14th Amendment. But notice what's missing. Where are all these stirring speeches by members of Congress and the state ratifiers supporting Roberts proposition? Keep something in mind. Listen, this is important. Two thirds of both houses of Congress must propose amendments to the states. In turn, 3, 4 must ratify amendments. That means, despite all the debates and speeches that occurred around this amendment, Roberts and the proponents could not find support for their position. You get my point, Mr. Producer. If he is taking the position that the framers embraced English common law, that this is how they view jurisdiction, that once born in the sovereign of the king, then you were a citizen to the king, that that applied to our country when it surely did not,

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

where

[Mark Levin]

all the great talkers, all the great speech makers, all the great declarations from members of Congress, Senate and the House, from legislators, where some of the greatest orators existed, where were they standing up and saying this was their position on birthright citizenship? There is not one. There is none. They do not exist because the focus was the terrible problems that arose in the south after the Civil War, the rise of the Klan, the horrendous violence and the lynchings against blacks, the overall difficulty with Reconstruction. Congress and their states were not thinking about birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. They weren't glued to the ideas of English common law. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were about creating the constitutional protections for freed black slaves. Slaves throughout the nation, not citizens of other countries who hadn't even arrived on our shores legally or illegally. The extent to which Roberts and the majority have to rewrite our history to reach the decision is an ugly business. And we come back to this word jurisdiction, where Roberts makes the same argument as those who've always supported birthright citizenship make. That is, jurisdiction means physical jurisdiction. If a pregnant mother is in our country illegally and has her baby in our country, the baby is granted immediate citizenship, according to this argument, because it goes back to 1600s English common law, where if you're born in the land of the monarchy, then you are a servant, a citizen, an automatic citizen to the monarchy. Now think about this for a matter as a matter of logic. Does it make sense to you? Does it make sense to you that a pregnant woman comes into our country and confer jurisdiction on her baby simply on her own? Does that make any sense? Do you think that's what the framers had in mind? Moreover, the country from where the parent comes continues to treat that baby as a citizen of their country. So that's not exactly allegiance to our country. And how can the baby have an allegiance to anything because the baby doesn't even know what's going on. And why are these exceptions for babies born of diplomats and so forth? Does the 14th Amendment, if it's interpreted as Robert insists, create exceptions of any kind? Now we're going to continue. I happen to think the Roberts opinion is absurd. Very result oriented, very activist. But he gets that fundamental issue wrong. As I posted what an hour or two ago, that is, excuse me, English common laws of guide. Sure, but they didn't abide by it like it's the Bible and they rejected aspects of it like this one. I'll be right back. If you missed out on Gold in 2020, if you missed the rally in 2025, it's not too late. Right now gold is sitting about 2020% off its all time high earlier this year so you could buy it at a discount. The fundamentals that drove gold over $5,000 an ounce, they're still strong. It's a limited commodity. You can't just print more of it. Gold often remains your hedge in times of inflation, war and political uncertainty. So get diversified and add gold with monetary gold. For 26 years, monetary gold has helped Americans own gold and silver in a tax sheltered retirement account like an IRA or a 401k. For five stars on the Better Business Bureau and Consumer affairs, visit Mark loves gold.com or call 877-now-gold for a one on one consultation. That's 877-669-4653 plus get a free guide to owning gold at marklovesgold.com or call 877-Now Gold performance may vary. Consult your tax or. Welcome back America. Shall we continue? I think we shall. Now this language is important. Jurisdiction. We go back to this word jurisdiction thereof. Listen to me, I'm walking you through it. Come back to the word jurisdiction where Roberts makes the same argument as those who've always supported birthright citizen make that is jurisdiction means physical jurisdiction. You're here. That's it. So if a pregnant mother is in our country illegally and has her baby in our country, the baby is granted immediate citizenship according to this argument for two reasons. Number one, under British common law, the subjects born in the King's kingdom are subjects. Well that's ridiculous. That's not what the framers believe. But that's that. Number two, it's the plain language. It says jurisdiction. What else could it possibly mean? Now as I said, does that make sense to anybody? So a foreigner can unilaterally confer jurisdiction on herself illegally? I guess by conferring then jurisdiction on her soon to be born baby by coming into the United States illegally. That defies simple logic. So is that what the framers of the 14th Amendment meant? Of course not. And they never said that. And meanwhile the country from where the parent comes continues to treat the baby as a citizen of their country. China does this now. The language states the following in the amendment. All persons born are naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. Notice the authors did not leave it at all. Persons born or naturalized in the United States, our citizens. They didn't say that. They added language that would have been enough. So why did they add superfluous language? Superfluous language? Because the rest of the sentence is key to what they intended. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof. So all persons born or naturalized to the United States they didn't say are citizens. They said subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It means subject to the political allegiance to our country and no other. A fundamental duty of loyalty to our country. Patriotism, part of the civil society, illegal bonds, societal ties in exchange for which you receive the legal rights and protections afforded all citizens. Somebody just walks into the country. None of that applies. If you missed out on Gold in 2020, if you missed the rally in 2025, it's not too late. Right now gold is sitting about 20% off its all time high earlier this year, so you could buy it at a discount. The fundamentals that drove gold over have $5,000 an ounce. They're still strong. It's a limited commodity. You can't just print more of it. Gold often remains your hedge in times of inflation, war and political uncertainty. So get diversified and add gold with monetary gold. For 26 years, monetary gold has helped Americans own gold and silver in a tax sheltered retirement account like an IRA or a 401k. Five stars on the Better Business Bureau and consumer affairs. Visit marklovesgold.com or call 877-now-gold for a one on one consultation. That's 877-669-4653. Plus get a free guide to owning gold at marklovesgold.com or Call 877-now-gold performance may vary. Consult your tax and financial professional Mark

[Show Announcer]

doesn't suffer fools well. So if you're a fool, don't call 877-381-3811.

[Mark Levin]

Pretty shocking. Pretty shocking. I think basically what Roberts has done is rewritten American history. That's what he's done. Let me go on. Now they point to this 1898 case, Supreme Court case United States versus Wong Kim, Arkansas. That case is totally irrelevant. Has nothing to do with babies of illegal aliens. That case involved the birth of a baby from lawful permanent residence. Hello, lawful permanent residence, not the baby of an illegal alien. But the language in that opinion was so broad and so over the top that Roberts used it, as do others in the birthright legal world, by the way, to apply to babies born of illegal aliens. But that has no, no relevance. So you can see that Roberts and the court majority were looking for an outcome and dressing it up as a constitutional decision. And in doing so, they have taken judicial activism to new heights. The decision will have enormously detrimental cultural, societal, legal, economic and national security consequences. And now we are told that we, you and me, we must amend the Constitution if we wish to change what a rogue Chief justice and court majority did in abusing our Constitution, knowing full well that 2/3 of members of Congress will never vote to send any amendment to the states that alters what half of Congress intentionally did to our country. And that there are not enough states, even with a convention of states, to ratify an amendment, 38 states. When and if we get to the Magic Number of 34 states supporting a convention in time to stop the ongoing damage. So you and I are supposed to have a discussion with each other on how to fix this? The way we fix it is more serious. Constitutional conservatives on the court, Robertson Barrett, severely undermined us. I know. I have a friend out there online who tells us all the wonderful things Barrett has voted for and so forth and so on. That doesn't fix this. It doesn't change this. There are some decisions that are of much more importance than others. This is a huge deal. This is a big, big deal. To constitutionalize something that's not in the Constitution. The claim that it is to rewrite American history as a Republican appointed Chief justice is appalling. Appalling. We use British common law as a guide from time to time, but have never been wedded to it. Never. We're a constitutional republic. That's what we are. Now, Robertson, his majority twisted the history of the 14th Amendment and just constitutionalized birthright citizenship, knowing full well that our nation, like Europe, is facing this grave threat from within. Now, Clarence Thomas dissent is long and absolutely brilliant. And he gets into this issue of jurisdiction. He says, wait a minute, let me tell you what jurisdiction means in America. And page after page after page, excuse me. He points out, in American history, jurisdiction means domicile. Where are you domiciled? Even today? I'm in this state. I'M in that state. Great. Where are you domiciled? Where you're domiciled, you get the vote. Where you're domiciled, you pay your taxes. Where you're domiciled, the law applies to you. Where are you domiciled? That's how Americans view jurisdiction. He points out. Where are you domiciled? And he does more than that, step by step, history and constitutional lessons that brilliantly, methodically unravels every aspect of Roberts argument. Alito, the same thing. Another brilliant dissent. A brutal takedown of Robertson majority. And he hits too, at this constant reframe about British common law being the basis of our understanding of citizenship. No, it's not. We're not talking about allegiance to a king. Even Britain abandoned that. And yet that's the entire basis for jurisdiction. Pretty much. And in the Thomas decision, which is also cited, the dissent by Alito, a quote after quote after quote of the. Of the authors of the Civil Rights act of 1866, as well as the 1868 14th Amendment to the Constitution. But everything I've just told you hasn't been told to you by a single lawyer on television, by a single legal reporter on television. None. Because this is what I've done all my life. Take court decisions, especially these important court decisions, and break them down. And break them down. In 1866, they weren't trying to preserve English common law. They were dealing with a real problem. In 1868, 1866, they still had rebel states. They refused to acknowledge or recognize the legitimacy of black citizens. And the Klan was started. The lynchings were horrendous. The beatings, the rapes, just disgusting horrendous. And they needed to deal with it. They weren't thinking about immigration, for God's sakes, let alone aliens and illegal aliens and their children. If I'm wrong, prove it. Show me where. Show me anywhere. A constitutional amendment that's not a little thing. Super majority the House and the Senate, super duper majority of the state legislatures. They're all debating, they're all talking, they're giving speeches, their newspaper reports. Show me. Show me. They can't show us. So they rewrite American history. That's what they did. They rewrite American history. Now let me tell you something else that bothers me about all this. By trying to expand what took place in 1866 and 1868, by trying to

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

expand

[Mark Levin]

on that whole notion that this was directed specifically at getting square, getting it right, getting it straight with our fellow black human beings to make sure that their lives could be Free and equal and participate in this country. We're talking about illegal aliens now and the children of illegal aliens. Like that was one of the purposes of the 14th Amendment. In other words, we're dumbing down. We're dumbing down the purpose of all these actions that took place. It had nothing to do with British common law. It had nothing to do with immigration. It had nothing to do with the children of illegal aliens. We were trying to get square with slaves, former slaves and their children. The 13th Amendment abolishes slavery, officially, the 14th Amendment, equal rights, due process, that freed black slaves and their progeny were to be treated as other Americans. And then the 15th amendment, the right to vote and nothing to do with the children of illegal aliens. Then you read these comments online. Read these comments. What did you expect? We have 150 years of this. What are we going to do, reverse it right away? You know what's interesting about that comment? Justice Kavanaugh wrote something in his decision which was very technical. He voted that the executive order violated a federal statute. He didn't really take a big position on the Constitution. So people are saying it was a 5, 4 decision. It was a 6, 3 decision. No, it's a 6, 3 decision because he voted down the executive order for whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. He voted it down, but not on constitutional grounds. But he said along the lines of the compromise that I was even thinking they might do, which is, we're not going to constitutionalize birthright citizenship. It's not in the 14th amendment. I don't care if they've been practicing it for 150 years or not. And by the way, that's not correct for 40 years after the 14th amendment. My view, the President's view, the view of other solid constitutional conservatives. Our view was the view that was upheld and followed for 40 years after the adoption of the 14th amendment. So it wasn't 150 years that said what Congress could do is the. The 14th Amendment does not say that just because you're born in America of illegal aliens, you're a citizen. But Congress. But the 14th Amendment does not say Congress can't grandfather in all those people who are already treated as if they were birthright citizens. So in other words, you have somebody here who's 83 years old. Okay, they've been here since they were 14 years old. And so what he's saying is Congress can still pass a statute and say, look, we're cutting off birthright citizenship on this date. Anything forward, no good. Which is the point. I made. I thought the Supreme Court might actually do that, but no bridge too far. Am I making sense? You understand my point, Rich. If not, I want to repeat it. So there is a fix, quote, unquote. If Congress wanted to do that, kind of a fix doesn't have to apply to everybody going back God knows how long. But that said, what this court did was you want to open the floodgates. Democrats, you want to break existing immigration law. Democrats, you want to fail to uphold the law, which, by the way, is a violation of the Constitution. Democrats. Well, you're going to be rewarded. Your party's going to be rewarded. The illegal aliens going to be rewarded. Everybody's going to be rewarded, no matter who's coming in. So if you have a terrorist, a female terrorist, who comes into the United States, and she comes into the United States, let's say from Qatar, and she has a baby in America, that baby is a citizen of Qatar and the United States of America, Then she takes him back to Qatar, raises the little bastard as a terrorist, then that citizen can come back to the United States because he's American citizen. Folks, this Hassan Piker was born in America, taken back to Turkey, radicalized, pro terror brought back, and you see what happens. Communist Chinese. Why do you think that they're pushing for hundreds of thousands of birthright babies in our country? They've set up a whole assembly line, massive system where these pregnant Chinese women come here from Communist China, they have their babies and they immediately take them and go home. They're creating spies, saboteurs, people who will be loyal to China, not to the United States. This is what the framers of the 14th Amendment we're talking about. They didn't have China in mind, obviously, but there needs to be a political allegiance, a loyalty, or as Clarence Thomas puts it, some kind of domicile relationship with the country. You don't just walk in and have a baby and you confer citizenship on that baby by giving them birth, that's insanity. And the idea that in the middle of Reconstruction and all the hell that was taking place immediately after the Civil War, that that's what these men were thinking of, was discussing. Shame on John Roberts. It's an appalling decision. It's a rewrite of American history. We are not subjects to a king. We are a constitutional republic. And no, the word jurisdiction does not mean what he says it means and the basis for what he says it means. I'll be right back. If you missed out on gold in 2020, if you missed the rally in 2025. It's not too late. Right now gold is sitting about 20% off its all time high earlier this year so you could buy it at a discount. The fundamentals that drove gold over 3, $5,000 an ounce, they're still strong. It's a limited commodity. You can't just print more of it. Gold often remains your hedge in times of inflation, war and political uncertainty. So get diversified and add gold with monetary gold. For 26 years, monetary gold has helped Americans own gold and silver in a tax sheltered retirement account like an IRA or a 401k. Five stars on the Better Business Bureau and consumer affairs. Visit marklovesgold.com or call 877-Now- Gold for a one on one consultation. That's 877-669-4653. Plus get a free guide to owning gold at marklovesgold.com or Call 877-Now. Gold performance may vary. Consult your tax and financial professional. I will be on Hannity tonight, the only show I'm being on because it's the only show I wanted to go on because I wanted to really digest all this and I'm not sure a pop up opinion on a decision that includes about 200 pages of comments and so forth and so on that that it can be done properly in that short bit of time I see my buddy Hugh Hewitt, you know, Hugh's a rhino, but he's an old friend of mine. I believe he's an old friend of Robert's. I could be wrong. He thinks this is a great day for constitutionalism. I ain't prepared to debate anybody on my program here on what a great decision this is because it's an abomination. There's not a damn thing great about it. Rewriting American history, basing it on the power of the king, ignoring how weak constitutionalists. But even more than that, the framers, including the framers of the 14th Amendment Thought and what they said is unacceptable to me and I am prepared to debate. I saw the vice president did an interview, I forget who with. Knowles is the guy's name. Maybe Michael Knowles. But I could be wrong about that where he said it's time to abandon Milton Friedman for Hamilton or something like that effect. I think what he meant was it's time to abandon Jefferson and Madison for Hamilton since Jefferson and Madison were really the adversaries to Hamilton. Obviously Milton Friedman was a free market Austrian school economist, among other things, a great, great man. But the original relative free marketeers were Madison and Jefferson and their ilk. Hamilton is loved by the left. Do I owe you something? Is that what you're trying to say? Okay, I can get back into this a little bit later. That's a debate I'd love to have. Love to have. Because Hamilton, you know, these are my areas of expertise where I have a lot of fun. Hamilton was more than about centralized big government. He also rejected major aspects of the Constitution after it was adopted, even though he argued for it. I'd love to get into that. I'm not done. I shall return. This segment of the podcast is exclusively sponsored by Pure Talk. Pure Talk offers great coverage and can save your family money on your wireless bill every single month. Go to PureTalk.com to find the plan that's right for you. Thank you again for listening, and thank you so much for this sponsorship. PureTalk. He's here.

[Show Announcer]

He's here now. Broadcasting him from the underground command post deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader and his Mark Len.

[Mark Levin]

Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number, 8773-8138-1187-7381-3811. We're here with our friend Hans Von Spakovsky with Advancing American Freedom. You know, Hans, I. I wanted to take time today to read all these opinions. And I thought John Roberts opinion was appalling. A complete rewrite of American history. And before we get into specifics, tell me what you think.

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

Oh, I agree. Justice Alito and Justice Thomas eviscerate. Eviscerate Roberts opinion. And basically both of them say, I mean, they wrote separate dissents. Both of them point out that Roberts got our history, and particularly the history of the 14th Amendment completely wrong. I mean, they're just not historically accurate. And you know, Alito was right when he says this is one of the most important decisions in the entire history of the Supreme Court. And Roberts and the folks who joined him just made a very serious mistake.

[Mark Levin]

I don't know how you're where Roberts is being honest and make a mistake. He purposely rewrote American history. He purposely uses British common law. Like somehow we're stuck in British common law. We've always used British common law as sort of a guidepost, but we've abandoned it many, many times. And this whole notion, and he kept going back to it, is what I took out of this. I wrote notes to myself. I put them online as well. Others are doing the same, apparently. But I did it on my own because I really wanted to understand this from my own perspective, you know, he's talking about in the 1600s that, you know, if you're born in the. In the land of the king, you're the subject of the property there. What he really meant is you're the subject of the king. And so he treats that as a carryover. And that was in the minds of those who wrote the amendment, the. The Civil Rights act in 66 and then in 1868, the 14th Amendment. No, it wasn't. That's a flat out lie, is it not?

[Caller]

It.

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

It is. And in fact, Alito points out that this. That history that he's pointing to, as you say, it had nothing to do with citizenship. It was saying that if you were born in England, you were a subject of the king and you could never get away from that. And, you know, Alito says that's a curious claim and pretty ironic that Roberts issued a decision claiming that. Right. As we're about to celebrate our 250th anniversary. And when we. In which we declared independence and rejected. We specifically rejected that idea.

[Mark Levin]

And then these. These references to Thomas Paine, and I'm reading this and others, and I thought, now he's trying to find principles, foundational principles to fit his outcome, and there aren't any. What the hell does Thomas Paine have to do with. With birthright citizenship? Absolutely nothing.

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

No, it doesn't. But look, he was. If you read through that opinion,

[Caller]

if

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

I was Roberts, I would fire all his law clerks if they are the ones that presented him with this research. I give you another quick example of how he just totally distorts things and how he's selective. Roberts invokes Frederick Douglass and a statement that Douglas made saying, the Constitution knows that all the human inhabitants of this country as the people to supposedly justify this. But Thomas points out that he fails to mention that Douglass himself argued that blacks were citizens because why they weren't comparable to temporary visitors. They weren't aliens. They weren't strangers. They were Americans who, unlike temporary visitors, owe equal allegiance to the US Government. That is not the case with aliens who are here illegally. They owe their allegiance to their native countries.

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

Mm.

[Mark Levin]

Have you been watching the. And I want to name individuals or networks. Have you been watching the legal commentary on this? It's been so. Not in every case, but so awful, don't you think? For the most part?

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

Oh, it has been. And again, look, it's a long opinion. It's 200 pages, but it's well worth reading Thomas Alito's dissent. I actually Think. Look, you're. You're a student of Supreme Court decisions. I think these dissents by Thomas Alito may be some of the best dissents they have ever. Or opinions they have ever written in entire careers on the court.

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

Mm.

[Mark Levin]

And they're very complimentary. In other words, I noticed Alito cites much of the research done in.

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

Right.

[Mark Levin]

In Thomas's decision, and he takes a little bit different of a track, but they wind up at the same place. Not a significant difference, but I feel like they were both so appalled that they felt like they had to write their own thing. What do you make of Kavanaugh? Kavanaugh doesn't. He basically says, look, the executive order violates federal statute. Fill in the blank. He's not really going to get to the constitutional issue, but he's going to vote with the majority because he doesn't think the executive order is lawful. I thought, wow, that's kind of.

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

I don't get that either, because I don't think he makes the case that the executive order somehow violates the federal statute. All the federal statute does is repeat the language of the 14th Amendment. That doesn't make any sense. Look, there's one. One very interesting section of Thomas's dissent, again, where he talks about how the majority denigrates his evidence. Well, he points out the evidence that Roberts ignored, which is that, for example, the representative, a guy named Bingham, who was the architect of the 14th Amendment, said the citizenship clause didn't apply to the children of temporary visitors. Senator Trumbull, who was the principal champion of the amendment, agreed. And the guy who introduced the citizenship clause into the 14th Amendment, Jacob Howard, said exactly the same thing. And yet Roberts. And they just kind of ignore all that.

[Mark Levin]

And what's interesting also about Thomas, he literally quotes from these guys extensively. And I noticed the way Roberts does it is very dishonest, too. I'm just being honest, folks. But I want Hans take. Just to make sure I'm on the up and up here. He takes, like, four words out of a paragraph or a sentence and throws it. He said this, he said that. That's very disingenuous, don't you think?

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

Oh.

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

Oh, it is. And that's exactly. That's what he did, for example, with Frederick Douglass, and he does it with all these other historical examples, which is why both Roberts and Alito said that what he relates is historically inaccurate and is just not the truthful story of the 14th amendment.

[Mark Levin]

Couldn't you tell from the oral argument, though? Roberts was completely disinterested. He didn't want to tackle this. He blew off, really, the arguments. It was a weird conduct, I thought, by him.

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

Well, it was weird, except that. You know what it reminded me of? It reminded me of what he did in the Obamacare decision.

[Mark Levin]

It's funny you should say that. Funny you should go ahead and then I'll tell you my view.

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

Yeah, yeah. Because remember, the story came out that he realized Obamacare was unconstitutional, it was beyond the power of Congress, and in fact, agreed with the four other conservative justices, but apparently at the last moment, flipped, changed his mind, voted with the liberals because he thought the political consequences would be too severe. And I. I get the impression from the oral arguments, I think, like you do, that he had made up his mind ahead of time that it would be too politically hurtful somehow if they agreed with the Trump administration on this issue.

[Mark Levin]

I remember when that case came out, the decision came out, I was on the air. Remember this, Mr. Producer? And I'm reading it out loud, and I said, wait a minute, there's typos in here. Wait a minute. Paragraphs aren't fitting together. Somebody flipped their vote, and it had to be Roberts. Remember me getting into that, Rich, As I'm reading the decision, I said, something happened at the last minute here, because who reads an opinion like that? And not only that, the tax clause and so forth and so on. It was ridiculous the way he twisted the tax provision of the Constitution, which is a bit arcane, and used that to uphold Obamacare. In other words, he was grabbing whatever fig leaf he could, and I feel like he's done it here, too. No, I think that's your point.

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

Oh, no.

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

Yeah, no, I think that's exactly right. And you know, Alito, Alex said long descents, but there's one point at which Alito says, roberts, the court's interpretation is saddling this country with an ancient British rule that even the United Kingdom has abandoned.

[Mark Levin]

Yeah, yeah, it's crazy. But then Barrack goes along with it. What do you think's going on there? You think they just didn't want to deal with this with just too much pressure, controversy and so forth?

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

No, I think that's it. Although, look, she. She issued a bad decision on Monday, too. And in the male mail balloting case, where, again, we had terrific dissents from Alito and Thomas and actually two of the other justices pointing out how bad her decision was and how wrong it was, historically wrong in the way our election process has worked for 200 years.

[Mark Levin]

It bothers me a lot that we have justices who want to come to these. I get it on the left, I get it with the three, I really do. But when you look at Roberts with the Obamacare decision, you look at him writing this decision, you even look at the. The Dobbs decision, he really didn't want to go for that. He tried to get them to walk off, quote, unquote, the windowsill, but he wound up going with it. He told them, can we find sort of a middle position on this? And so forth and so on. When you get not all, but some of these really big cases, he ducks. He really does duck. He's very concerned about the reputation of his reputation and of the court, I think, rather than, in some cases, the Constitution. What do you think of that?

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

Oh, no, I agree. In fact, I think that sometimes he's so concerned about a decision of the court looking political that he takes steps which he thinks will make it look like they're not engaging a political decision. And it has the exact opposite effect. It makes him look political.

[Mark Levin]

Anything else you saw in Robert's decision? I just feel like he spent a lot of time on distractions, on shiny objects to try and persuade people that. That this is what jurisdiction means and citizenship means. And I just feel. I feel like. Was a very long opinion that didn't tell us a hell of a lot.

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

No, I just. It was just badly written. It was historically inaccurate. And despite the fact that he sometimes has, you know, issued good decisions, like in the one about Harvard and stopping racial, Racial racist admissions, I think this decision and the Obamacare decision will forever poison his legacy on the court.

[Mark Levin]

And these are. These are massively important decisions. I mean, this decision here is gonna. I mean, think about it a second. There they are. Reconstruction's going very, very poorly. You've got these horrendous things being done to freed black slaves in the South. Violence and lynching and the Klans growing. And I mean, basically, in 1868, Grant has to send the army down there, right, to try and settle things down. And the idea that these men in Washington, they were sitting there thinking about immigration and the children of immigrants and that this was somehow an immigration amendment. It was an amendment based on the 1866 Civil Rights Act. They wanted to enshrine it in the Constitution because they saw that Johnson vetoed the law and they were afraid the Democrats could take over and reverse everything. Isn't that the basis for this to try and the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments to try and make things right for the previously enslaved blacks? It had nothing to do with all the rest of this stuff.

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

No, that's exactly right. And they even look, he even misconstrues the last opinion that the Supreme Court had on this 130 years ago, which only said that the children of permanent resident aliens would be citizens. Now, I don't think that was correct, but it did not go as far as Roberts and his cohorts claim it did.

[Mark Levin]

No, in fact, it has nothing to do with it. As you just pointed out, those different plaintiffs, those were permanent citizens.

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

Right, Right, exactly. Those are not temporary sojourners, as they call them in the 1800s and in our case today, people who are in the country illegally.

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

Mm.

[Mark Levin]

All right, Hans, what do you make of this? Now? People say, well, let's take a break, come back. I want to talk to you about what people are saying the remedy to all this is. We'll be right back. Doesn't stand for 250 years as a beacon of hope without the brave men and women willing to put their lives on the line to defend it and to honor those patriots. Pure Talk and its customers will raise $250,000 for America's Warrior Partnership by the end of July. Now, this is an unbelievable foundation. It stands on the front line of helping to prevent veteran suicide by covering the basics. Housing, access to VA benefits, transportation, counseling, the tangible things that give veterans a hand up. When you switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk this month, you'll have an opportunity to round up to support America's Warrior Partnership. Pure Talk will match that donation till the total donation hits $250,000. So get unlimited talk, unlimited text, unlimited high speed data. Just 34, 99amonth, folks. And be proud to partner with a wireless company that shares your values and was founded by a veteran himself. And that's PureTalk. Go to PureTalk.com Levin. That's PureTalk.com L E V I N to switch to my favorite wireless company right now. Pure Talk Again, that's PureTalk.com Levin. I'm Svon Spakovsky. Of advancing American freedom. Don't you love it? Now people say, well, now we need to amend the Constitution. We need to have a debate among the American people. Number one, let me ask you a realistic question. What are the chances of two thirds of the House and the Senate agreeing to change this court's ruling and then sending it to the states for 3/4 of those states to change it? What's the likelihood you're going to get any Democrat, you're going to get any Rhino Republican to join in? Isn't this a Constitutional matter.

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

No, no. I mean, look over the history of the United States. There have been literally hundreds of constitutional amendments proposed, and only a small handful have gotten through. And given the opposition that Democrats have shown, not just on this issue, but on basic issues like proof of citizenship to be eligible to vote, they. They would fight this tooth and nails. No way they can go through. I mean, the other alternative is triggered by, you know, the very last paragraph of his dissent. Justice Thomas says, I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time. And if we could replace two of the justices on the court, perhaps one. If Kavanaugh could be persuaded and take this new case back up to them, then hopefully they could overturn this bad precedent. I mean, look, just today, at the same time they released this opinion, Mark, they released another one in the campaign finance area that overturned directly a precedent from 2001 that they said was wrong and it violated the First Amendment.

[Mark Levin]

Yeah, you're right. Now that's what's going to do it. We're not going to be able to amend the Constitution and. Excuse me. And that's really the only alternative. You know, the Democrats would be talking about pack in the court if they didn't get the decision they want. That's not what we do. Listen, you've been a bulwark on this. I want to thank you and hang in there. We'll talk later. Okay?

[Hans Von Spakovsky]

All right. Thanks, Mark.

[Mark Levin]

God bless. Take care of yourself. We'll be right back. America doesn't stand for 250 years as a beacon of hope without the brave men and women willing to put their lives on the line to defend it and to honor those patriots. Pure Talk and its customers will raise $250,000 for America's Warrior Partnership by the end of July. Now this is an unbelievable foundation. It stands on the front line of helping to prevent veteran suicide by covering the basics. Housing, access to VA benefits, transportation, counseling, the tangible things that give veterans a hand up. When you switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk this month, you'll have an opportunity to round up to support America's Warrior Partnership. Pure Talk will match that donation till the total donation hits $250,000. So get unlimited talk, unlimited text, unlimited high speed data. Just 34, 99amonth, folks. And be proud to partner with a wireless company that shares your values and was founded by a veteran himself. And that's PureTalk. Go to PureTalk.com Levin. That's PureTalk.com L E V I N to switch to my favorite wireless company. Right now. Pure Talk again. That's PureTalk.com Levin. Yes, it's true that Mark Levin is the fastest growing radio show in America. The Mark Levin show is on at 877-381-3811. Let me ask you a question. Let's say you live in New Jersey, you walk into Pennsylvania and you declare, I'm a citizen of Pennsylvania. Does that make you a citizen of Pennsylvania? Now, let's say you're pregnant and you have your baby in Pennsylvania. Does that make your baby a citizen of Pennsylvania? Of course not. First of all, babies don't have free will. They're the citizen of wherever their parents are. Look at all this cockamamie, all these cockamamie hoops we have to jump through in order to buy this, this notion of birthright citizenship. Tell me, if you walk into another country and you're pregnant and you have your baby, you think that other country is going to say, oh, yeah, yeah, that's a baby of Canada? Course not. This is all concoction, a concoction. It's an outrage. And yet this is where we are right now. It's important to spend time on this because like we did Obamacare, like we have some of these other big decisions. If I don't do it, who's going to do it? Nobody. No offense. Who's even capable of doing it? Who's on radar? Nobody. And so we go through this and it affects your life. This isn't something that's esoteric. This is the real deal. And what John Roberts has done here with his sidekick Barrett and Kavanaugh in a very bizarre decision, he's been doing very well lately, I cannot explain. Now here's the smartest lawyer in the family who's walking in. No, you don't want to talk about it.

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

I'm appalled.

[Mark Levin]

You can have to speak into the microphone. She's going to have to learn that.

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

Yes, I'm appalled at what was done to the United States Constitution today.

[Mark Levin]

This is one of the biggest decisions in our lifetime and one of the worst because now these Islamists come in, they give birth to children, then they go back home and then they come back. The Communist Chinese are doing this like an assembly line. Is this how you create a, a country? Is this how you get people to assimilate into your country? What are we doing when a Supreme Court lies about our own history, uses the sovereignty of the king as the basis for arguing that if somebody's born here on the soil that they're a citizen? Because, you know, there Is this British common law in the 1600s that if you're born on the soil of the sovereign, then you're subject to the sovereign? We're a constitutional republic. Whatever British common law we might like to emulate, it still has to be washed through the belief system of a constitutional republic. What do you think?

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

I think you're 100% accurate. And I also think that if you asked from a common sense perspective, an American on the street, they would also agree with that. I mean, you have very, very particular and advanced knowledge about the Constitution and what it says. But from a pure common sense perspective, what this did is just as bad as what Biden did when he flung open the doors to our country.

[Mark Levin]

You're right. There you have it. From the authority in this household anyway. Thank you, dear. How terrible is this? Let me give you another example. The Constitution, they specifically exempted Indians, Indians from the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment. Does anybody know why? Because Indians have an allegiance also to various Indian nations, the Navajos or the Hopis or whatever it is. And so they specifically excluded them from being automatic citizens in the United States because of the that kind of a citizenship situation. Just crazy. Absolutely crazy. I'm going to read something to you. Subject to the jurisdiction was a familiar way to describe, as Thomas writes, the relationship of a domiciliary to his home nation. Lawyers in America would have known that a person was subject to the jurisdiction of the place of his domicile. Think about it. In your own lives, in your own place, you're subject to the jurisdiction of a county, you're subject to a jurisdiction of the state. Why? Because you live there or you do business there, not because you walk through it. Congressman confirmed that the clause should not be construed to refer to the bare territorial power that is sovereign exercises over persons in its territory. Quote, I understand the words here subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, said Senator Reverend Lee Williams, to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The word jurisdiction is here employed, said Senator Howard. These are people involved in these statutes. And then the amendment ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction. The same jurisdiction, extend and quality, extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States. Now, the citizenship clause, Senator Trumbull agreed, means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. I'm quoting them through Thomas's opinion. So although in one sense all persons born within the geographic limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, Senator Williams explained, some were not covered by the Citizenship Clause because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Each of these descriptions precluded applying the Citizenship Clause to the children of temporary visitors who, unlike children domiciled here, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. And it was on this basis that Congressmen believed the clause fixed in place the rule of the Civil Rights Act. Senator Trumbull stated that the Citizenship Clause, like the Civil Rights act, would still exclude all persons subject to a foreign power. Quote, what do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anybody else? That is what it means. Quote unquote. Senator Howard agreed. These are the authors that the Citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment would not of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens who belong to the families of embassy, let's see here. Ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States. And shortly before the Citizenship Club was introduced, Senator William Fessenden, a supporter of the amendment, explained that persons may be born in the United States and not be citizens of the United States. Then gave the example of a person who was born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country, a citizenship clause, just like the Civil Rights act, also excluded from citizenship the children of tribal Indians, meaning Indians whose tribes retained sovereign authority over them. They were specifically excluded. So John Roberts had to deceive and connive and lie to get to where he wanted to go. Everything I just read to you, which is a matter of public record, which his clerks could have found just as Clarence Thomas and his clerks found, are all but ignored. Instead he goes back to the sovereignty of the King where we are the subjects. And if you're born on the King's land, then you're a subject to the King. And he says that's the basis for jurisdiction. Because we all know that those rabble rousers who founded our country were glued to British common law. We all know that's a lie. They followed it or they didn't following it, but they washed it through the constitutional republicanism that is America. I hope this is helping people understand how bad this is, how bad this is and how dishonest the majority is. And the Chief justice among them, the leader of them. We'll be right back. America doesn't stand for 250 years as a beacon of hope without the brave men and women willing to put their lives on the line to defend it and to honor those patriots. Pure Talk and its customers will raise $250,000 for America's Warrior partnership by the end of July. Now this is an unbelievable foundation. It stands on the front line of helping to prevent veteran suicide by covering the basics, housing, access to VA benefits, transportation, counseling, the tangible things that give veterans a hand up. When you switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk this month, you'll have an opportunity to round up to support America's Warrior Partnership. Pure Talk will match that donation till the total donation hits $250,000. So get unlimited talk, unlimited text, unlimited high speed data, just 34, 99amonth, folks. And be proud to partner with a wireless company that shares your values and was founded by a veteran himself. And that's Pure Talk. Go to PureTalk.com Lavin that's PureTalk.com Levin to switch to my favorite wireless company right now, PureTalk again, that's PureTalk.com Levin, You now know more about the 14th Amendment, the citizenship clause in this subject. The most of the lawyers who've been talking about it all day, that's why you're here. That's why I'm proud that you're here. We take the time I do to study these things and actually read them at length. I will be on Hannity tonight to discuss it with him. So you know, I've been talking about birthright citizen for probably a quarter of a century. Quarter of a century or so. There's one gentleman who I like who posted, well, what did we expect, that they would overturn 150 years of practice? First of all, it's not 150 years, as I said, 40 years after this amendment was adopted, they were interpreting it the way we interpret it. But that said, yes, we expect them to do something of that sort and Congress can step in and fix it. You don't need a constitutional amendment to confer citizenship. They didn't say you, you must give citizenship. But Congress can if it wants to. It's up to them. But don't hammy, all we have to do is amend the Constitution. We're not fools here. We're not fools. We know what that process takes and it's not up to us to fix a bad Supreme Court decision. And one day this decision will have to be fixed. It's just going to get harder and harder and harder as the demographics change. And now look at the motivation the Democrats will fling open again the borders. People will come in here illegally. Birthright citizenship. There comes a point at which you can't reverse it. So people who say, calm down, take your time, they're not adults. They're not mature. They're foolish. I would say you better get revved up and you better get concerned. And we have to find ways to deal with this. Electing more conservatives so we can get more conservatives on the court. Don't be cool. It's okay. We'll figure it out. No, that's not the way this works. In the middle of a revolution against us. Look around. How much more evidence do we need? So our betters, quote, unquote, are not our betters? Those of you who are concerned, you see what's going on. You're the betters. That's why you're in this audience and I'm with you. This is a very, very big deal and very troubling. We got a lot of people want to get on. I don't normally go this early, but let's go early. Let's go to Mike. Gainesville, Virginia, the great wmal. Go right ahead, please.

[Caller]

Hey, Mark Levin. A pleasure to talk to you, sir.

[Mark Levin]

Thank you, Mike.

[Caller]

You know, the subject of the jurisdiction issue is about a baby. A newborn baby, subject to the jurisdiction thereof to a baby implies allegiance and nothing else. It's not about domicile. It's not about being a taxpayer. It's about whether a state or nation can claim that child as one of theirs. So.

[Mark Levin]

No, that's not correct at all. Whether a state can claim it as one of theirs. Where does it say that?

[Caller]

Well, I'm talking about the nations, the foreign nation of the foreign nationals that are here.

[Mark Levin]

First of all, you need to read these opinions. So you know we're dealing about. I tried to do the best I could. Client Thomas's point is. Yes, in America means domicile. That's jurisdiction. That's what it meant when the colonies started. That's when it meant when the colonies became states. That's what it meant when the nation became a nation. Domicile, as opposed to were born here. Therefore, we're subject to the sovereign, whether it's government or not. That's number one. He makes the point correctly, and I do, too. It's a baby. They can't make these decisions. So they are domiciled wherever their parents are from. That's where they're domiciled. That's number two. Number three, if you don't like the domicile argument, the other argument, which is equally important, but I think they overlay, is you have to have some connection beyond a temporary physical existence in a state, in a country, particularly if it's the baby giving. You're giving birth to a baby, and the baby has no connection to anything except the parent. And there needs to be something more. So political allegiance means a loyalty, a legal connection, a societal connection, something that connects the individual with the governing entity or the nation. And in return, in this civil society, they get protection. You know, like with police, there's law and order and that sort of thing. I think they both overlap. It doesn't bother me at all. Go ahead.

[Caller]

Well, I think we're sort of agreeing and disagreeing on a minor point at the same time. I do agree that the baby's domicile probably belongs to where the parents are citizens. And that means that the child is a citizen of a foreign nation at the same time that's being born here. So there's no reason for the baby to get a dual citizenship at birth in our country if it already has a nationality somewhere else.

[Mark Levin]

Correct.

[Caller]

An allegiance to another country. Right.

[Mark Levin]

You're right 100%. It doesn't even make any sense. Plus, here's the other thing. Here's the other thing, Mike. There's no record of them ever saying anything like this. There's no history to this. Zero. Good call. From America's revolutionary war to Israel's fight for survival in 1948, both nations have faced moments that tested their courage. Yet freedom endured. Through generations of challenge and triumph, America and Israel have stood as beacons of courage, democracy, and faith. Bound by shared values and a common belief in freedom, the United States and Israel continue to stand together as allies, as friends, and as partners in the cause of peace and security. As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews honors the enduring friendship between the United States and Israel, two nations united by faith, liberty and hope. You can show your solidarity with Israel and the Jewish people by requesting your Free US Israel flag pin from the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. We're proudly to show your unwavering support for both countries. Sign up to receive a Free USA Israel flag pin when you go online. To levin for the fellowship.org that's L E V I N for the fellowship.org he's here.

[Show Announcer]

He's here now. Broadcasting them from the underground command post deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Levin.

[Mark Levin]

Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number, 8773-8138-1187-7381-3813. We're gonna move on something. I hope you'll find interesting. I saw somewhere today and I mentioned this earlier that JD Vance had mentioned he prefers Hamilton to Milton. To Milton Freeman, a lot of liberals like Hamilton. Remember the play Hamilton that was in New York? Maybe it's still there. They loved it because in modern parlance he's considered the big liberal, the big central government liberal. And he and Jefferson hated each other's guts and he and Madison hated each other's guts. I'd love to discuss that. We've tried to get JD on and he's tried from time to time. They contacted Mr. Producer earlier this week asked about Tuesday at 6:40. The problem with 6:40 is that gives us five minutes. So we said how about 6:35? That gives us 10 minutes and they couldn't do it. I don't know why. I mean if they want to talk it's going to take more than five minutes. I'll ask one question, he'll take four minutes and that'll be the end of it.

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

Right Rich?

[Mark Levin]

I mean we can't do that. So that's kind of ridiculous. Happy to have him though. It's a lot to get into but this is my new interest because of him raising it.

[Caller]

And

[Mark Levin]

Hamilton is very interesting since he brought it up. So the left likes Hamilton, the Net, the so called nationalists, populists, they like Hamilton. I'm a Jeffersonian, Madisonian and I know I am and I'll be that way for the rest of my life. Let's talk about this. I'm looking up the section here that I wanted to read to you of my book on power. It's the most important little book I think in 20 years. Let's look at this. Lets look at the most influential founders. Alexander Hamilton, his notion about liberty and the role of government often conflicted with Jefferson's and Madison's. Indeed, it turns out that Hamilton is among the most popular, if not the most popular founder among those who today support a more centralized and activist government. There's good reason for this. Hence the popularity of Hamilton the Broadway musical, especially with the elites in entertainment, media and politics among others and most academicians. In examining Hamilton, I begin with Madison, who wrote in Federalist 45 the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. Madison wrote the former will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace negotiation and foreign commerce with which the last the power of taxation will be for the most part connected to the states. The powers reserved to the Several states will extend to all objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state. So you could see that Madison, like Jefferson, like so many the founders, believed in a very limited central government. Now, this was the overwhelming view of those who. I'm getting this from my book on power, just so you know. This was the overwhelming view of those who drafted and ratified the Constitution. Obviously, Hamilton fought for the Constitution's ratification along with Madison and to a lesser extent, John Jay. He wrote the pro Constitution Federalist Papers. Nonetheless, it is important to recall that as the Constitutional Convention, that at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton, according to Madison's notes on the proceedings, clearly demonstrated his affinity for a powerful central government. Is that what you folks favor? And if so, what's happened to you? Powerful central government can turn against you on a dime. Consider that he proposed, that is Hamilton, quote, letting one branch of the legislature hold their places for life, or at least during good behavior, let the executive also be for life. Anybody here support that? He appealed to the feelings of the members present. This is Madison writing, whether a term of seven years would induce the sacrifices of private affairs which an acceptance of public trust would require so as to ensure the services of the best citizens. On this plan, we should have in the Senate a permanent will awaiting interest which would answer essential purposes. So a permanent president. Hamilton's idea was quickly dropped as it had almost no support. Professor Raul Berger, one of the greats in his book Federalism, the founder's design did more than most to delve deeply into the matter of implied. This is important implied and conversely expressed powers. That's crucial to determining how much liberty actually exists within democracies. The exercise of implied powers is too frequently an abusive exercise and unauthorized power. Oh, that power is implied. No, it's not. Oh, yes, it is. Central to the constitutional scheme, writes Berger, was restriction of the federal government to few defined and limited powers and assurances the state's residuary powers would be invaluable. He explains that in Federalist number 33. It was Hamilton who sought to ease any concerns that states have had to the Constitution that they were establishing a federal government that would reach outside its express powers. Hamilton wrote, and I quote, what is power but the ability or faculty of doing a thing? What is the ability to do a thing but the power of employing the means necessary to its execution? What are the proper means of executing such power but necessary and proper laws? Madison stated, writes Berger, that the clause gives no supplementary power it only enables them to execute the delegated power. So in other words, Hamilton saying, hey, look, what's the big deal? I need whatever power I need I should get and take whatever power I need to execute as I'm free to execute. Madison says, wait a minute, no, you get no supplementary power. You do only what you're allowed and delegated to do. Moreover, this was the clear understanding in the state ratification conventions, the plain text of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution referred to as the necessary and proper clause. This is what leftists hang their hat on. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States. Now, Professor Berger observed that the records make plain that the necessary proper clause was merely designed in specifically authorizing the employment of means to effectuate to carry into execution granted powers, and granted powers only, not to augment them. And they strongly read against the doctrine of implied powers. Implied powers, which means anything you want it to mean, right? So to be clear, Congress was not granted discretionary power by way of implied powers to legislate at will. Despite Hamilton's assurances he believed in an energetic central government. He was doggedly committed to this end as a close confidant of President George Washington as Treasury Secretary. So, putting aside his eloquent defense of the Constitution during the crucial state ratification debates subsequently after that, it appears Hamilton had different intentions once the state legislatures adopted the document. For example, in 1791, at the request of Washington and in defense of the constitutionality, the proposed bank of the United States, which was vehemently opposed by both Jefferson and Madison, Hamilton wrote in part, it is not denied that there are implied as well as expressed powers, and that the former implied powers are as effectually delegated as the latter. And for the sake of accuracy, it shall be mentioned that there is another class of powers which may be properly dominated resting powers. It is conceded that implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones. Now, let's obviously not the case, he said, this restrictive interpretation of the word necessary of necessary and proper clause is also contrary to this sound maxim of construction, namely, that the powers contained in a constitution of government, especially those which concern the general administration of the affairs of the country, its finances, trade and defense, etc. Ought to be construed liberally in advancement of the public good. This role does not depend on the particular form of government or on the particular demarcation of the boundaries of its power, but only on the nature of the object of government itself. So you get the rest. I'm not going to read it all, but it's pretty bad. See, I'm not a Hamiltonian and when JD says he is a Hamiltonian, this is very, very interesting to me. And I think that ought to be a point of discussion. Man, you know, they'll say, well he favored the bank and he saved our financials. So what? We know that's true, but he believed in more than that. That's just the, you know, that's the short explanation. There's much more here. Hamilton argued for a Teutonic shift away from the near universal understanding the Constitution structure, which drew the strong ire of both Jefferson and Madison among others. And they argued that Congress had no power to create such a national bank, that it was the role of the states to create banks if they so desired. They were furious with Hamilton's assertion of implied powers and his expansive reading of the Constitution, especially when they had conveyed exactly the opposite in the Federalist Papers and in the arguments in the states to ratify the Constitution. The debate over how to interpret the Constitution erupted early in the Republic and it would only get more intense. Not only would the manner of interpretation be disputed, but also who should interpret the Constitution and have the final say. And I go on there dealing with Marshall. So Hamilton was relatively radical early on in breaking away from the confines of the Constitution. And this is the problem with so called nationalism, populism. They have slogans for the people, America first, things of that sort. But what are their principles? What are their governing principles? What are their political principles? What are they? And this is where the overlap, if you will, occurs with the left. There's nothing new with this sort of paleo conservative or nationalist populist ideology. It's been tried before during various courses, cycles in our history. But is that what you are or you a constitutional conservative? I mean if we have Republicans who believe that a powerful central government is the way to go and you have Democrats believing it also, then where does that leave us? This is why you have people who are huge fans of Theodore Roosevelt. I think the President is a fan of Theodore Roosevelt. I think the Vice President, others are too. I am not. Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive by his own definition. When he ran third party against Hafton Wilson, he ran on the Progressive Party, they called it the Bull Moose Party, but it was the Progressive Party. And he wrote a very extensive article in the New Republic back then in the early 1900s which laid out the case for effectively a Quasi socialist. I'm telling you the truth. The reason they wanted to get him the hell out of New York as governor is because he was a fairly radical interventionist. So I'm not. Look, I respect him a lot, his presidency. The man was shot, you know, and he kept giving a speech and so forth. He's a remarkable man. He was a great war hero too. So don't get me wrong, I'm just saying he's not on my top of the list. And yet for many people he is. Particularly those who are so called nationalist populists. The Constitution exists for a reason. It's not just if you're Republican or a Democrat or your national populist or a Marxist Islamist. It's there to protect you and me from all these people, all their ideas, all their ideologies. There's a gentleman God who wrote Gad Gaad. I'm sorry, he was on the program, wrote a book called Suicidal Empathy. It's a great book, but it's built on the notion that Montesquieu talked about that we've talked about here too,

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

where

[Mark Levin]

he's warning about so called virtuous people. And he explains it's not the only one, but prominently so. During the Enlightenment, Montesquieu explains, you got to keep an eye on the people who want to use government to pursue virtue because their virtue may not be what you think virtue is. And they are so righteous and so self confident about their ideas about virtue that they become a grave, grave threat. CS Lewis warned about the same thing. The same thing, Virtue. Now there are virtuous people doing virtuous things. That's not what they're talking about. They're talking about politicians who want to use government in ways they become almost impossible to question or match or check or whatever. Keep in the line. We want equality, we want affordability, we want low prices. Oh great. What does all that mean? If you're a politician, you can mean a number of things. And so he was right. So I side with the Jeffersonians and the Madisonians. One, the author of the Declaration, the first draft, the other, the followed the Constitution. And I do not side with Hamilton. It's not to say he didn't do some good things. I mean a lot of people who I disagree with have done some good things. That's not the point. The point is what things are they pushing? What's their ideology, what's their objective generally? And a lot of what Hamilton was preaching was very deceiving from my perspective. We'll be right back.

[Show Announcer]

Mud Levin.

[Mark Levin]

With Donald Trump back in office, one of his biggest adversaries, top Democrat Dick Durbin of Chicago, is leading the charge to derail President Trump's agenda at every turn. And now Durbin has a new scheme, a government takeover of your credit card. Right now, Americans have thousands of credit card options, all with equal strong security. But Senator Durbin's plan could result in less security. That means more risk for your credit, your identity, and your financial future. Durbin's bill isn't about helping consumers. It's a giveaway to corporate megastores, which could shift costs onto you while putting your rewards and fraud protections in jeopardy. We've seen Durbin's fail policies before. His last big banking regulation backfired, leading to higher costs and fewer benefits for American families. Tell Republican senators, stop Durbin's government takeover of your credit card before it's too late. Learn [e-mail] that's Guard your card, paid for by the Electronic Payments Coalition. What I do here on radio can't be done on a podcast. It can't be done on tv, because podcasters want fights and the F bomb and so forth and so on. It's not me. I can't do that. Tv, that's totally different. Much tighter form here. This is why I love this format. Conservative talk radio. I love radio. I love our affiliates and satellite and everybody else who's handling this, I want to thank you because we can dig very deeply. And one day I'll be gone, and maybe this format will be gone, and nothing's gonna be able to replace it. Really, nothing's gonna be able to replace it. So I know we're blessed, all of us, me and you. Let's go to Sister Maria, Chicago, Illinois, the great wls. Sister Maria, how are you?

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

Oh, I'm doing fine. In January, you asked me to call back if I had questions, so I'm calling back.

[Mark Levin]

Go for it.

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

Okay, now, my. My concern is one of domicile. And my opinion is that if we don't set up criteria for dual citizenship. And we're talking about.

[Mark Levin]

You know what? I misread the clock. Sister, let me get right back to you. Don't hang up. We'll talk to Sister Marie as soon as we return. I'll be right back.

[Show Announcer]

McLeod, then the thunder on the right. Call in now. 877-381-3811.

[Mark Levin]

All right, Sister Maria, Chicago, Illinois, WLS. Go right ahead, please.

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

Okay, my concern is one of domicile and I don't know how we set up Criteria for dual citizens about voting in our elections. And I'm talking about the children of people kind of flies over here. The cartels from Mexico flies over here. Because when Those children are 18, they are coming back here to vote in our elections, not to the benefit of the United States.

[Mark Levin]

No, you're right, sister. And there's nothing that can stop it right now. Nothing. The court just ruled the way it ruled it did. So without any factual basis or historical basis, it was very deceiving what John Roberts did and just appalling. You know, I don't know what to tell you.

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

And we can't try to set up criteria for dual citizens voting.

[Mark Levin]

Well, we can't do anything because they just ruled the way that they ruled.

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

Okay, okay.

[Mark Levin]

Now, if you're a citizen of the United States, you're also a citizen of, let's say, Botswana. You can vote in Botswana, you can come back here and vote in the United States. Terrible.

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

And when you vote in the United States, you're going to vote the way Botswana wants you to vote.

[Mark Levin]

I agree with you.

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

Because they're going to pay for your airfare to come over here to do this.

[Mark Levin]

You know, we have to remember what immigration was supposed to be about. Immigration was supposed to be about the improvement of our country and the improvement of the. Of the lot of the citizen who's here. Not to replace us, not to destroy our country, not to do any of these things. And we seem to have lost the. The entire premise of immigration. The entire premise. All right, sister, thanks for your call. We'll keep rolling here. Let's go to Esther. Brooklyn, New York. How are you, Esther?

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

That's a. If I'm going to answer that question, I'm going to be on the phone for the next half an hour.

[Mark Levin]

I can't be with you to call

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

mayor Man Danny, as mayor, I refuse. Anyway, so let's talk about this ruling today about birthright. As we had this discussion in Brooklyn tea party approximately 15, 18 years ago, we were talking about already then about jihadists and Islamists and we were. And the head of the Tea Party forgot what his name was quoted some. I forgot the date, which database. So which data bank that Muslims have seven children per household versus Jewish who have six per household.

[Mark Levin]

It might be Orthodox Jewish, but, you know, reformed Jews barely have one.

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

Right. And this opens up the floodgates. I mean, I. We have. Are all Muslims bad? No, I know I get along with

[Mark Levin]

some very nice ones, but we're not talking about them. We're talking about Islamists. Who want to destroy our country.

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

That's right. We have two apart. We have an apartment building next door to us. Two apartments that. That are one bedroom each. Ten people live in each apartment.

[Mark Levin]

Must be fun.

[Caller or Guest (Female, possibly Mark Levin's spouse)]

There are mattresses wall to wall. That's what the superintendent told me. I mean, they. And they still practice polygamy. They come in here and they say, this is my wife. This is my girlfriend.

[Mark Levin]

This is my other wife. Remember that show? This is my brother Darrell. My other brother Darrell. Guess it's something like that. All right, Esther, thank you. We're going to keep rolling. Okay. Tim McAdow, Michigan. What, what. What station are you listening to us on?

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

Wios.

[Caller]

WIOS or wkjc.

[Mark Levin]

Okay, go right ahead. Please.

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

Shout of East Thomas. I'm from Mikato.

[Mark Levin]

God bless you.

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

Hey, Mark. I am a veteran. My father was a veteran. Both my parents are from West Virginia. I was born at the Landstool Army Hospital in West Germany.

[Mark Levin]

Wow.

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

And during civics classes as I was growing up, they'd have everybody who was born overseas, we'd all raise our hands and they said, you can never become president, but yet somebody can come here illegally, drop a baby, and then take it out of the country and bring it back 18 years later, and they can become president. There's something wrong with our system.

[Mark Levin]

Isn't that frightening? Isn't that crazy?

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

That's way frightening. Yeah. My buddy, he was born in the Azores. His dad was in the service, too. Yeah, you don't get more American than him and I. But yet we can't become president.

[Mark Levin]

I know. Now those bases aren't considered American territory.

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

I was born with a German birth certificate. As a matter of fact, when I was born. Lance tools where they send all the. They were sending all the wounded from Afghanistan and Iraq and stuff for treatment. But back when I was born there, it was just a little. Little shack for the most part, but nonetheless, I was. There wasn't even an American doctor on duty when I was born. There was a German contract doctor and two Frau midwives delivered me, but nonetheless, I got a German birth certificate. And when I got back to the States, my parents had to naturalize me.

[Mark Levin]

Okay. Well, you turned out pretty well, I'd say there, brother.

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

Well, I tried to, but I think our countries.

[Mark Levin]

I think we're in deep trouble. This. There are decisions, and there are decisions. This was one of the biggest decisions of our lifetime. I'm not kidding. Because of the consequences that are involved. And it's a real Decepticon, this decision. The way Roberts Developed it through British common law. I'm sorry, we don't live by the rule of kings. That was the whole point of the revolution that we're celebrating in a few days, 250th anniversary. The irony of this, where he's saying that British common law, which the, which the founders and the framers embraced, starts with the proposition, excuse me, that if you're born, if you're born in the land of the, the monarchy, the sovereign, that you are a citizen. No, you're a subject to the king. They rejected that. And yet throughout his opinion, he keeps referring to this. And he's corrected by Alito, he's corrected by Thomas. And yet throughout. It's outrageous what this guy's done. And when you consider an amendment requires 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures and all the debates that took place and all the, all the speeches that took place and all the reporting that took place, and they can't point to direct evidence of any of those debates and speeches anywhere, federal, state level, that support the notion of birthright citizenship because it's insane. They never supported that notion. Anyway, thank you for your call, my friend. I much appreciate it. Let's see. Let's go to another vet. Am I in the right place or not? Tim in Michigan, how are you? No, and I got that wrong. Gary in St. Cloud, Minnesota, Sirius XM Satellite. Gary, how are you?

[Caller]

I'm doing great, Mark. Thanks for taking my call. What I'm calling about tonight is such a dark day for America is I'd like to bring to light that there is a way for us to potentially expose and prosecute another type of citizenship fraud and denaturalize potentially millions of citizens who became that way illegally. And that is. We were talking, we've been talking about birthright citizenship. We need to talk also about naturalized citizens because there is a. There is a fraud machine cranking out naturalized citizens in this country by faulty or fraudulent medical diagnoses that let them skip the English proficiency and let them skip the civics test and basically be fast tracked to citizenship. There are doctors in every major city in this country who brag, some of them are outright advertising it. Come and get your form N648 diagnosis for citizenship. So they're basically selling medical diagnoses to help people who are already in the country and are naturalized in some way. Refugees, natural alien, resident aliens, aliens, whatever, to fast track them to citizenship. And this is still illegal. But no one's talking about it. No one's Prosecuting it. And here's the real takeaway from it, Mark. When you look at the effect of citizenship, I would say, you know, new citizens, right, on various states and how it affects their elections. It's not just the number of new citizens that become minted in that state, right? By birthright citizenship, by naturalization or whatever is the percentage of the overall population. Because that's how you win elections is a bait by being, you know, 51 to 49 or whatever, right? They're using these form N648 medical diagnoses. I'm sorry, this is very technical, but listen to me.

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

This is.

[Caller]

This is the second most important thing you're going to hear tonight. All right? All right. Six of the top 10 states for percentages of naturalized citizens are swing states. They're all. They're using fraud.

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

They have a.

[Caller]

They have a citizenship.

[Mark Levin]

Are you in this industry? So you see with your own two eyes.

[Caller]

I've been involved in elections for years. I wanted to know how various immigrant groups get to vote without reading the. They can't understand what they're even doing at the ballot box. Someone else is voting for them. So I look into it. Four men, 648 medical exemptions, every big.

[Mark Levin]

We got it. We got it. We'll be right back.

[Show Announcer]

Mud love in.

[Mark Levin]

So did I mention I'm on Hannity soon? Mr. Produce, actually, I don't know what time during his hour. It doesn't matter. I've just gotta run to the other studio. The other studio is actually another room. One of these days, maybe I'll show everybody. I better not. So, ladies and gentlemen, I ordered this book. It's been on my desk. Ayatollah Khomeini's Mein Kampf by Ayatollah Khomeini. And I've been reading through this. It doesn't get any sicker. So I think next week or the week after, depending on. I'm going to read some of this to you. So you know what we're dealing with. These people are not going away. They're not defeated. They're going to survive. And they will fight another day. And when five years pass, 10 years pass, our kids and our grandkids are going to have to deal with this. I'm just telling you, I don't care how much I'm attacked or badmouth or. What are you, a warmonger? Those are that two IQ crowd. No, I'm a peace monger. Morons. The Islamists are dangerous. Eliminating traces of intellectual, moral, colonialistic Russian. This is The Marxist, Islamist combination. He was a big admirer of Hitler and Lenin. Hitler and Lenin. And they all have these little books. Hitler had Mein Kampf. This is this guy's Mein Kampf. Then you have the Communist Manifesto. When you think about all the deaths, all the horrors, the torture, the rape as a result of these three men in three little books. Mein Kampf, Hitler's Mein Kampf, Khomeini, the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels. When you think of these three men, four there, but really Marx and their little books, their ideologies, which have much in common, by the way,

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

and all

[Mark Levin]

the death that results from that. That's why you have to take these, these individuals who seem. Well, that would never happen under this guy or that guy. You've got to take them deadly seriously. Deadly seriously. Because not to is a huge mistake. A huge mistake. Look, we got a couple of good opinions out of the court, too, but I don't really care. The big enchilada was a disaster,

[Rich (Producer or Co-host)]

and

[Mark Levin]

it's going to be a disaster for the rest of your life unless we get conservatives in and so forth and so on. And that's not going to be so easy. It's not going to be so easy to reverse this. It gets harder and harder and harder. Of course, the Democrats are arguing Trump tried to to attack black people. Does this have to do with black people? We salute our armed forces, police officers, firefighters, emergency personnel, our truckers, ice, the men and women in Israel, the men and women in Ukraine, the men and women in Iran, and you, the American people. God bless you and thank you. And I'll see you tomorrow right here. And I'll see you in about 30 minutes on Hannity.