EP 94 US Supreme Court Opinions, breakdown

Summary

Mountain State Libertycast: EP 94

US Supreme Court Opinions, Breakdown
Date: July 12, 2026
Host: Tye Ward
Guest/Co-host: Taylor "Birthright Citizenship" Richmond

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Tye Ward and Taylor Richmond analyze several recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions from a distinctly Libertarian and West Virginian viewpoint. Their main focus is a case originating in West Virginia about transgender athletes’ participation in girls’ school sports, followed by a discussion on mail-in ballot deadlines and birthright citizenship. The conversation blends legal breakdowns, personal anecdotes, Libertarian philosophy, and spirited debate on local autonomy and federal overreach.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. West Virginia Transgender Athlete Supreme Court Case

[00:20] – [30:59]

• Background:

  • In 2021, West Virginia passed a law restricting participation in girls’ public school athletics to “biological females.” A transgender female (track athlete “BPJ”) and her family sued, resulting in an injunction and a case escalating to the Supreme Court.
  • Other states had similar laws, but West Virginia was barred from enforcement due to pending litigation.
  • Supreme Court ultimately held that states have the authority to decide these policies unless explicit federal constitutional provision applies.

• Libertarian Take:

  • Tye and Taylor highlight internal Libertarian conflict:
    • The concept of public school sports is itself problematic from a purist Libertarian stance, as the institution wouldn’t exist in a private, voluntary society ([03:41]).
    • However, as long as public schools exist, rules are necessary for fairness ("If a public school is going to exist, they have to have rules..." – Tye, [03:41]).
  • Criticisms of the West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission (WVSSAC) were discussed, wondering if they could have acted differently.

• Fairness & Empathy:

  • The hosts stress widespread public discomfort with the idea:
    • "It seems pretty logical from most people’s minds that a biological boy shouldn’t be playing girl sports." – Tye [06:19]
    • They note empathy for the athlete but maintain fairness must prevail.
  • Taylor draws a parallel to broader trends, noting that movement-adjacent individuals may exploit public controversies for personal gain but suggests BPJ was genuinely motivated to compete ([09:33]).

• Counterfactuals and Local Action:

  • Discussion of how parent or student protests (boycotts) could’ve affected outcomes showed that, largely, people continued to participate despite objections.
  • Libertarian mantra: "If you don't like something, you're fully within your rights to not participate and let the market decide..." – Tye ([11:11]).

• Local Control vs. Centralization:

  • Taylor: "The best way to do that is to basically sever as much ties and control from Charleston [state government] as you possibly can..." ([26:59])
  • Both strongly advocate for more localized decision-making in education and athletics, with smaller entities being nimbler and more responsive than state or federal bureaucracies.
  • Taylor presents the Libertarian solution with expanded school choice and private leagues for those seeking different standards ([24:11]).

Notable Quotes & Moments

• "There’s probably a better analogy. But, you know, some things pass the smell test and some things don’t." – Tye, [21:43]
• Taylor’s "Dave Smith/drugs in the park" analogy for public services ([15:09])
• "If you have a special exception as a... you’re the one customer that requires a push mower..." – Tye, using a lawn care metaphor for policy exceptions ([17:19])

---

2. Supreme Court Ruling on Mail-In Ballot Deadlines

[30:59] – [54:41]

• Case Summary:

  • The Court considered whether mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received after should be counted (Mississippi case). The ruling upheld that as long as the ballot is postmarked by Election Day, late arrival does not invalidate it.

• Arguments Explored:

  • For Counting:
    • Fairness demands that voters can't be responsible for postal delays – the law allows postmark by Election Day ([33:30] Taylor).
  • Against Counting:
    • Danger of indefinite election outcomes due to late ballots ([33:30] Tye).
    • General skepticism about mail-in ballots: "The idea of mail-in ballots, to me for like in California, it’s like everybody just gets sent a ballot. That's not... that's nuts." – Tye ([35:30]).
    • Tye prefers in-person voting, likening the existing security to mailed ballots’ vulnerabilities.
  • Legal Reasoning:
    • The decision hinged on the actual statutory language, with Justices suggesting if a more stringent deadline is desired, legislatures must amend the law.
    • Amy Coney Barrett’s opinion noted the law doesn’t specify when ballots must be counted—only when voting and postmarks must occur ([38:14], [44:24]).

• Broader Concerns:

  • Long discussion of ballot security, the effectiveness of the U.S. Postal Service, and the logic of state/federal divisions in election law enforcement.
  • Tye’s skepticism of democracy and voting efficacy: "I don’t think voting really matters. Especially federal elections. I don't think it matters. Like, it really doesn't." ([50:19])

Notable Quotes & Moments

• "If you can draw Mickey Mouse on your ballot [in California], that’s not a secure election." – Tye, [50:54]
• "Greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." – Taylor, [48:44]
• Taylor calls Tye “blackpilled” for dismissing votes as inconsequential ([50:29])
• “If I can understand it, anybody should be able to understand [how elections work].” – Tye, [48:53]

---

3. Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

[54:41] – [70:47]

• Overview:

  • The case centered on the Trump administration’s EO suspending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen under long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
  • The intent of the 14th Amendment (originally about granting citizenship to former slaves) and whether it should apply to children of non-citizens was debated extensively.

• Arguments:

  • Tye:
    • A logical stretch to allow "anyone born here" to automatically gain citizenship (especially when parents are non-citizens/undocumented).
    • "Having citizenship gives you a certain amount of… entitlements… entitled to all the same rights as everybody else—it seems… there could be some problems with that." ([58:18])
  • Taylor:
    • Initially for birthright citizenship, but after reading Justice Thomas’ dissent and related history, agreed it is likely a misreading of the 14th Amendment’s original intent ([59:32]).
    • Emphasizes the welfare state now makes citizenship much more consequential.
  • Both stress original context was to ensure citizenship for former slaves, not for diplomats, tourists, or illegal immigrants.

• Nuances Explored:

  • Taylor references the Supreme Court podcast “We the People” for detailed historical and legal arguments ([65:55]).
  • They challenge cherry-picking Congressional quotes to support broad interpretations, emphasizing the need to look at drafters’ intent.
  • Tye acknowledges broader Libertarian principle of minimal government but accepts some practical distinctions for citizenship until “Ancapistan” is realized.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• "If we're gonna start... We all know what's going on here. Clearly, those people didn't mean that you could just come here and have a baby and they're a citizen." – Tye, [65:11]
• “I agree with Thomas… 14th Amendment was more specific than what is being interpreted now over 160 years later.” – Taylor, [62:56]

---

Political Philosophy and Local Culture

Threaded Throughout

• The hosts repeatedly return to:
  • Libertarian skepticism of federal overreach: Education, sports, elections, and citizenship should be left as locally controlled as possible.
  • Cultural Fit: People should be free to find communities that match their values (“…if it’s something that's really affecting your life, probably the best thing for you to do is to go somewhere where that somebody's culture matches better what your values are.” — Tye, [25:14]).
  • Limits of Law and Central Planning: Law should be clear but limited; local governance is more agile and responsive.

---

Timestamps by Topic

• West Virginia Transgender Athlete Case: [00:20] – [30:59]
• Mail-in Ballot Supreme Court Ruling: [30:59] – [54:41]
• Birthright Citizenship Decision: [54:41] – [70:47]
• Local Autonomy vs. Centralization: Throughout, especially [26:03] – [30:59]
• Notable Libertarian Commentary: Recurrent from [03:41] onward

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• “If you have a special exception as a... you’re the one customer that requires a push mower…” – Tye, using a lawncare analogy for crafting laws ([17:19])
• “If you don’t like something, you’re fully within your rights to not participate and let the market decide…” – Tye, on voluntary action ([11:11])
• “Freedom isn't easy, Liberty isn't always safe.” – Taylor, on the tradeoffs of decentralization ([30:26])
• “Greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” – Taylor, quoting Churchill ([48:44])
• “We're all mentally handicapped and need to have everything spelled out for us.” – Tye, mocking legal hair-splitting ([48:34])

---

Tone and Style

The conversation is candid, colloquial, and laced with humor and sarcasm, often self-deprecating and irreverent about both their own political tribe (Libertarians) and the broader issues at hand. Both hosts combine practical, local insights with a macro-level Libertarian critique of government overreach, always circling back to the preference for local control and personal autonomy.

---

Conclusion

Tye and Taylor wrap up with brief plugs for their respective West Virginia legislative campaigns, blending campaign anecdotes with reflections on local concerns (such as education, CON laws, and cultural representation).

---

Endnote:
Listeners interested in a deeply Libertarian, West Virginia-rooted analysis of recent Supreme Court opinions—and who enjoy analogies about lawn equipment, competitive shot put, and Carhartt v. gym shorts—will find both fresh insights and plenty to ponder in this episode.

---

For further information, connect with:

• Taylor Richmond (WV State Senate candidate): richmondpersonate.com
• Tye Ward (WV House candidate): Facebook @TyWardforWBHouse

Transcript

[A]

Hello and welcome to the Mountain State Liberty Cast. I am your host, Ty Ward. I am joined today by my co host, Taylor Birthright Citizenship, Richmond. Hello, Taylor.

[B]

I wonder which way you were going to go with that.

[A]

I chose the one. I can't say. I'm clearly born here because I can't speak English. So we're just educated here. Yeah, we thought we'd. Because nobody else has done it, we thought we'd cover some of the most recent Supreme Court decisions. There's been a bunch of them, but there's a few, you know, hot button ones, including one that was derived from West Virginia. We can talk about some details about that. So, yeah, Taylor, the. I can't remember. I can't remember her initials. So the Becky Pepper, bpj. Yeah. So that originated here. And just to do a quick Overview. So in 2021, the West Virginia legislature passed a law protecting women, girls, sports, or whatever they called it. But it was basically a law that said that only biological girls could play in girl sports. And, you know, it seemed like it was pretty cut and dried. And then there was this, this transgender female athlete. Her family sued the state. She was a track athlete. They sued the state. And it went to

[B]

district court.

[A]

Yeah, I guess district court. And went all through that process and it became a. The state, what. I appealed it, I guess, and then I don't. Whatever. It ended up a Supreme Court case. And I guess I didn't realize this, but somebody, maybe Laura Kimmel was explaining to somebody on a radio show that some other states had passed similar laws that were in effect, but because ours was being, you know, held up in the Supreme Court, that our law obviously couldn't be enforced because it had been an injunction put on it. So I found it pretty ironic that we were the first state to do this and then we're the state that can't enforce it. That's just a little side note. But so it went to the Supreme Court and they waited till the, the last day of their most recent. What do you call it? I don't know, time period. Yeah. Docket, I guess. What. How often do they do the. Do this where the Supreme Court gets together and decides opinions?

[B]

Every year.

[A]

They do it once a year?

[B]

Well, no, I mean, they have, they're in session. They hear arguments generally in the fall, and then they deliberate for several months and then they come out in the spring and then they, you know, provide their hearings or their rulings. Sorry.

[A]

So, okay, so that was, that was the one that had to do with, with West Virginia and I guess so they decided. I guess they basically decided that the. The opinion is that west. What a state can decide this. Is that. Was that the total of what they decided?

[B]

Yes, effectively, that this was a nowhere really written in the Constitution. So therefore the states have the authority to make these type of rulings as it relates to school sports.

[A]

Yeah, so there it is. I think we've talked about it a little bit on here, but honestly, in my opinion, you know, it's a slippery slope because, you know, as far as what libertarians go, I mean, the. The bit. The idea of public school sports is kind of like. Well, I mean, in a perfect, you know, anarchist world, there wouldn't be public schools to begin with. So, I mean, I don't. It's one of those things where you're like, I don't know if. If a public school is going to exist, they have to have rules for what they're doing. And the. The. The state of West Virginia has a athletic board that decides a lot of these rules. And, you know, if the state legislature passes a law, they have to enforce it, but then if there's an injunction, they. They can enforce it. And a lot of people have been criticizing the WV SSAC. I don't even know what does it stand for that sounds right. Letters just start saying stuff.

[B]

Secondary School Sports Association.

[A]

And so people were criticizing them about doing nothing. And. And I don't. It's. It's one of those things, like, I don't really know what they were supposed to do. You know, 20, 21 was when this was. This was passed. And, you know, one of the main arguments, you know, opponents of the law was, you know, it's not even happening here. And, you know, it was a preemptive law, and a lot of it was based on hype. You know, Riley Gaines came here, the famous, you know, swimmer that was beat by a transgender swimmer that, you know, she became a big advocate for, you know, securing girl sports and protecting girls sports. And so it was a preemptive law. And then all lo and behold, you know, this. This athlete decides to throw shot, but put in the girl's track, and then it becomes an issue and they. They sue. And. And then it. It was kind of ironic that, you know, the transgender athlete that sued is what kept the law from actually being enforced. I don't know. It's. It's one of those things. I don't. I don't really have a. I get it, you know, just based on my personal, you know, the way I view things and Even I think most people that would call themselves, you know, Democrat or not, super progressive or super left leaning, they hear about that and they go, yeah, I mean, I don't, They're a, they're not, they're a boy. Like, they shouldn't, you know, people have a hard time talking about it because they don't want to be insensitive, but they're like, yeah, it seems pretty logical from most people's minds that a biological boy shouldn't be playing girl sports. Like, everybody feels like, you know, some empathy for the, for the kid, but you're like, yeah, that's, that's not fair. And that's what, you know, and we could talk about that if you want, like what sports is supposed to be about. But, you know, fairness is supposed to be. That's why you have rules. That's why you have this organization that decides rules and you have referees and all these things that you decide what is, you know, you can't run 100 meter dash with a necklace on. That's a rule for track. But you can identify as a girl and then play throw, shot put in the girl's track. Like, you know what I mean? Like, it seems like it's pretty simple, but it's become this huge thing and I don't know, do you think it would have. I don't. It's. I'm, I'm getting into weird speculation territory, but I don't know, you know, would this have been as big a deal had the law not been passed?

[B]

So what does that scenario look like to you then?

[A]

I don't know.

[B]

So BBJ competes, it still wins. I mean, obviously, I think what happened, I. No, I think what, what would have likely happened had not passed in 21 is BPJ competes likely goes on to win as they did in, in the state championship, which is where a lot of the fervor for this came from. Right. It was because it was the state championship track meet and obviously it got notoriety being a state event. So then there's, you know, there's just regular cover news coverage. But then they being who they were then made it more of a viral thing. So had it not been passed in 2021, I fully suspect that after they won the state championship, it would, it would be the first bill on the docket or on the desk of legislatures in the 2027 session.

[A]

So, yeah, I guess what I was getting at was, and I think you're right, I think that if that scenario played out, I feel like maybe they wouldn't even have played if it not had been a screw you to the state legislature and the Republicans. And, and I definitely don't think there would have been as much fervor to like make sure that they participated. And the parents wouldn't have had that much, as much, you know, political fuel to get. And it could, from what I've understand, they've gotten tons of donations and all kinds of stuff like that. So I don't think there would have been as much, you know, political fervor for that to continue. I don't know. I. I guess I'm trying to say maybe they. The only reason they even participated was because of that legislation that passed. I don't know.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I mean, that's a possibility. And I. And I know if you expand the gamut of a number of political situations, not just this one, but you know, you look at like going back to Tea Party and what's the Wall Street. Is it Wall Street? I was like the 99% movement. What was that called? I'm blanking on it.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah.

[B]

Wow. So something Wall Street.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And then Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street. Thank you. And then you fast forward in the Black Lives Matter. And so there's always people in these movements who are in there, not necessarily because they care so much, but it is a grip for them. Right. They see that they have an opportunity to capitalize either financial, financially, socially, move up in some capacity, whatever. Now do I think that of bpj. Not necessarily. Maybe have different opinions on her, on their parents, but I think they are a kid that just wants to compete, you know, very confused about their life and everything and loves track and wants to compete. So I think they probably still would have gone forward and been a part of the track team and competed in the shot put in everything else. And we probably would have got into a very similar situation. You did mention though, correctly. So there wouldn't have been an injunction and then for the West Virginia School Sports association would have had some leverage or opportunity to weigh in and do something that they didn't have the opportunity to do now. And that was the issue, right. Where some people were crying out that, oh well, the school system needs to step in and make this fair and right for all the girls, the biological girls that lost and literally the, the school, the association's hands were pretty much tied. I mean, the, the court said no one does anything until this gets further adjudicated. So that would have been the difference in this whole situation. Go ahead.

[A]

Yeah, I will say that, you know, a point that's been brought up is, you know, when, when, when this kid was participating in middle school track, I guess it was like a regional competition or something. One of the schools, the girls, they, all the, all the throwing sports or activities, whatever, they, they boycotted it from one of the schools and, and they said no, we're not going to participate. And they ended up getting, they got suspended from their team like it was and like nobody backed them up. Like. And so to me, you know, we always say, you know, the whole take human action mantra is that if you don't like something, like you're fully, you're, you're fully within your rights to not participate and let the market decide that if enough people say no, we're, we're not playing until this is, you know, adjudicated, whether you do it or not. And, and nobody did. Everybody just kept all these parents that are so outraged, they just kept sending their girls to play, to run track with this person. And if they did, if they had such a problem with it, like, I mean, I understand the whole idea of, you know, well, they only get one chance at high school sports and this isn't fair. And I'm like, yeah, yeah man, life isn't fair. Like if you, if you're really that worked up about it, you're just gonna let them be exposed to that. If you, if you have a problem with it, you're gonna let them be exposed to the thing that you think is so bad, despite you, you saying it's going to cause irreparable harm. Like it just to me it's like there's a lot of, I guess you would call them chicken hawks for a lack of a better word to just people that like to talk a lot. And I don't even know how much of the, the parents that kids were participating with this person if they really did have such a huge problem with it. Like, I don't even know a lot of it. All this stuff is you just hear, you know, hearsay and what people assume and this isn't right, this shouldn't be. And then you don't hear a lot of, you know, first account, you know, perspectives on how they feel about it or whether they care or not. I don't, I don't know. Have you heard anything like that?

[B]

No, I don't know any, any first hand accounts. I don't have, you know, friends or connections really that have kids that age or are competing in that sport anyways. So I don't know. But I think Ty, going back to Your point earlier. My point, at least as a libertarian would be that I think it is to me and I think like you said to the vast majority of folks, and this has been bore out in polls for the past five years or so, since this really have brought eyeballs onto this situation. The subject, a lot of people feel that it is unfair for biological male transition to female athletes to be competing, especially at the high school and collegiate level. There's some debate about, and this was in the arguments and I think in some of the opinions about middle school and before that when young boys haven't gone through puberty and attained a lot of the advantages physiologically that they generally have over females. So, but to then goes into, well, we really don't want as a society, we really want to get into parsing out some of those kind of specifics. Right. So you know, I think there is a significant amount of fairness and equity that goes into having separate spores for biological males and females. And in west, in places like West Virginia and a number of other states across the country, where public school is such a overwhelming majority, if not the majority of the only option by which you can receive your secondary education and compete in these type of sports, then I think it's important for fairness and equity to be protected. And I take into a very similar kind of mind frame as the Dave Smith talks about, like the drug addicts doing heroin at the park. You know, it's like, well, this is, you gave us this park. I think it's reasonable for us to want to protect it from certain things and that you apply that type of mentality. I'm not saying that this is an apples to apples comparison, obviously, but public education and the public sports in public schools is something that is the only option for so many students that you have to make it as fair as possible. And allowing biological males who transition into female compete in it is unfair. So as libertarian, the response is, well, if you have vastly expanded school choice and athletic choice that goes along with that, then if you individuals can go and compete in leagues where that is allowed and therefore you have avenues to vote with your feet and vote with your dollars and what you want to support or not. But in the meantime, because that is the only thing that so many of West Virginia kids have, I think we have to keep it fair. I agree with the ruling and again for me personally, it really goes into a different area in terms of choice and certain things we talk about adults and children. So that's my take. I think I agree with the ruling. And you Know, I hope that DPJ can find some avenue to compete and find success and fulfillment in where it's more equitable for them.

[A]

Yeah. And to make it, you know, the idea of public, private, you know, separation, it is like, like okay, so I have a lawn business and I have one yard that I have a push mower. Cuz there's part of the lawn is, has no access for my bigger equipment and so I have to push mow it. It's like, I think if you total it up, it's like maybe a, like 20 by 30 foot square. And so it's like I, I have a, a lawnmower and it's not in real great shape and at times it, I've had trouble getting it started and you know, and I weed eat that. It's such a small area that I'm good enough with a weed eater that I can weed eat this area. And it looks like it's been mowed. So, and, and a couple times, you know, the, the customer has said, you know, don't you usually push mow that? And I'm like, yeah, my push mowers down. And, and I said, yeah, I'm, I fully understand, I'd buy a new one. But you're literally my only yard that I have a push mower with. It just doesn't make any, doesn't make any sense for me to. A thousand bucks on a new, you know, commercial push mower for 1 yard. Maybe if I get some more yards, I have to push mow it, I might make that investment. And that customer, understanding that the area we live in and I was doing an adequate job, they don't have a ton of options, he said, okay, you know, in an area, maybe he lives in Charleston and he can say, well, that's not acceptable, I'm just gonna find somebody else. But I don't make a special exception and go spend a bunch of money on a customer that if I lose that customer, it's like a, you know, 100th of my entire customer base. It doesn't make any sense for me to make a special exemption. But then he could say, well that's not fair, I need my lawnmow too. Well, cool. You have options. And also that's not how this works. But you know, if you have a special exception as a, you know, whatever. And again, it's, it's, it's hard to even talk about this stuff. Taylor being empathetic and trying not to be, you know, use weird language because who knows what you're supposed to say, and not say. But if you're, if you're a transgender child and you and your parents have made that decision, you're the one customer that requires a push mower, like. Well, yeah, and you're the special oddity. You. And, and again, not to say, you know, you're, you're the exception, and the rules shouldn't be made for the exception. Yeah, you're an outlier.

[B]

And I don't think you meant oddity.

[A]

Well, but you are, You're. You're an audit. You're the odd man out. That's. And it is what it is, no matter what you want to say about it. Whatever. Make the, whatever choice you want. You do your weird thing at your house and don't expect everybody to make exceptions to what you decide to do fully. You do whatever you want, but that's not how any private, public, none of it works that way.

[B]

And then. And you made a point. The calendar has been, you know, or the counter to this ruling and the stance of the legislation is, well, you know, there's just so few of these individuals at this level competing that, you know, just, just let them do it because it's, you know, the numbers are so small. But, you know, you, you're being asked, or we as a society, we are being asked to be empathetic to, you know, this quote, unquote, handful of individuals and what they're going through. But you have to think, you know, I don't know what a shot put roster, you know, looks like in terms of high school and middle school sports, but still at. In West Virginia, when you look across all of the schools that are in that range or class, I don't, I don't know which school they went to. I think Bridgeport, which was, yeah, probably triple A, double A anyways. But you take all the double A. And then now that person, by being. Just by virtue of being there, has excluded someone from making it to the regional level and from someone from the regional level, make it to the state level. So then you've impacted at least two more or two people. You've doubled the N in this calculation. But then also all the people that you beat by being able to have a gold or silver medal and all those things. And, you know, there's always these cascading effects where the numbers of the negatively impacted by them being there will out. Will always outweigh the negative impacts of them not being able to compete.

[A]

Yeah. And that's the thing is. And we all, we all. It's one of those Things that. There's probably a better analogy. But you know, some things pass the smell test and some things don't. Like, we all know, like, you're talking about like ages of like when we've already decided this. My son just played on the soccer team this last spring for, it's like the max, like for this youth league. And he's 12. He played with a bunch of girls. The girls were all the best athletes on his team. Now when you go to middle school, that stops because, you know, some biological things happen and all of a sudden the girls aren't better anymore. And so it's like, we know this, this is not new information. We all know this. We've accepted it. There's an age that everybody just kind of goes, yeah, that's about right. About 12, 13. That's about right. We start separating the, the sexes in sports. Like, and then people say, well, and this is the other thing, Taylor, I've not heard this, maybe the argument's been made, but about every other year on, you know, high school football teams across the state of West Virginia because there's not a rule against it in most places you see a girl on the boys football team. Now have you heard of any star football players that are females?

[B]

Tony Romo.

[A]

All right, well, that's.

[B]

Joke.

[A]

All right, all right, buddy, calm down. So no, the answer is no, you haven't. And, and you know why? Because it's not an unfair advantage. Like, it's, it's. Sometimes you'll get one that's pretty talented and maybe they'll go like they'll play the jv, but they're, they're not starting. Maybe a kicker here and there, but like it's not like an. We, well, we, we know the reality of what's going on here.

[B]

But the issue with that though, I'm not disagreeing with you. The, the issue is that that female and, and you know, full disclosure, obviously, we both know that the vast majority of those individuals are going to be kickers. So you know, it's not really a route that gets you to the pros too often anyways. But those situations, those females have out competed a sex that is physically, physiologically more advanced and stronger, faster, etc. Etc. So they are literally kicking beyond coverage of the rest. Rest of their sex.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And playing with, in the level of, of males. So that for me is apples and oranges. But you know, anyways, so I think that's. A libertarian would want more school choice, more opportunities for you to choose where you, where you Play, and if you can find a league or an association or whatever that allows for that, then great, go do that. People will be happy with it. But in the mean, when people are forced to have only one option in which to get an education and then compete in physical activities and sports, we should make it as fair as possible. And the overwhelming majority for as long as we've been in society, believes that starting at 12 to 13, there is a noticeable, significant biological and physiological difference between males and females, and we should separate them for fairness and equity. And that's a reasonable thing to continue until you become older and want to compete in other things all wired up and be in private leagues and. And do whatever, but outside of the public education system.

[A]

Yeah. And. And, you know, and then the general principle of this is why we don't want expansive government. We think government should be as small as it can because culture decides these things on their own. And then government gets involved and makes it this huge problem that we've spent God knows how much money taking this all the way up to the Supreme Court, and I think we've said this on this podcast before, is if you live in a place like West Virginia, there's certain cultural things that are not going to change, and if they are, it's not anytime soon. So if it's something that's really affecting your life, probably the best thing for you to do is to go somewhere where that somebody's culture matches better what you've. What your values are. And I know how that sounds to some people, but that's just the reality of living in a community.

[B]

This is the conversation I'm having on the campaign trail. Ty is, you know, a lot so. And while not wildly transitioned, but still transition, it somewhat. Gosh, no pun intended there. But in Marion County, Marion county was one of the school districts in the state where they had a child who identified as a cat and requested to have a litter box in their. In their classroom. So that's, you know, scuttlebutt around the towns and everything. So I get the conversation, well, what do you think about this LGBTQ+ stuff in our schools? And I said, well, you know, I know there's a case here. There's a case down in my neck of the woods, Beckley area. You know, it's not a huge thing, but if it does become a growing situation or more commonplace, you know, who's going to support it and allow it? Charleston.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Charleston is going to be the one that's going to be protecting, you know, things that the majority of folks don't like. So what's the best solution to that? Remove Charleston's controls over your local schools, return power back to your local schools and classrooms and not dictate so much and give so much control to Charleston. Because when you do Charleston being one of the more liberal cities, if you're so hell bent on being conservative and closed off and closed minded in some capacities, well, the best way to do that is to basically sever as much ties and control from Charleston as you possibly can for Reidsville, Barracksville, Monongo, whatever the town is. And then you all run your school how you all want. But Republicans and conservatives alike will happily turn over control to Charleston and then they, they just, they're flabbergasted when stuff like this comes through, and not always through Charles itself, but sometimes federally, but sometimes it comes through Charleston. And if we would have started severing ties and providing local control back to the communities over their schools, they wouldn't have such a recourse reaction to this that you're seeing.

[A]

Yeah, it's, it's, that's the main issue is, you know, sink or swim localities having more control over what happens at any form of government and, and especially education. You get better results and you, you figure out what works and what doesn't and then if it starts failing, people can adjust and, and get people in there that could, they actually have a little bit of say in what goes on. You know, you know, you, you're, you have one legislator, you know, in your district, you have one House rep and one senator. And, and you know, they're, the chances of them being able to do anything or unless they have a huge, they've been there a long time and they have a lot of influence. It's really hard for them to get anything changed. And, and when you have that kind of centralized control, as we always say, it's like moving a tanker ship. It's really hard to turn around. But if you just pass one law that says, you know, we're going to give a little bit more control back to these, these localities and I don't know, it's just even, even on a school level, even if you don't, even if you get rid of county districts or county school boards and you make it districts and you give more control to the schools and the principals, you have a better chance of people being able to rep. Find representation that actually can make change in their communities so.

[B]

Well, and to be fair, Ty, I would say it's not always, you know, smaller doesn't necessarily always lead to better. Right. Trial and error. School districts and individual schools will try things that are probably failures in a number of capacities. But to the point you were just making because they're smaller, they can be more nimble, they can be more responsive and reactive than having to wait for a county or a state to come in and correct, identify and fix whatever the problem is.

[A]

So yeah, and there's less excuses. They don't, they can't say, well the school board, the state school board and the legislature won't do anything.

[B]

Yeah, they can't pass the buck. Right. And that's, that is the, the draw for a lot of folks with, with libertarianism is that, you know, freedom isn't easy, free, you know, liberty isn't always safe. Right.

[A]

Freedom ain't free terms.

[B]

Well and that too. But when you have that, you do provide yourself in your communities and in whatever, you know, whatever body or you know, you were talking about, have more flexibility to make some errors and make things. But again, the good thing is you are much more responsive and accountable and therefore able to course correct faster than relying on county, state or federal, you know, departments or boards to help you and make those changes for you. So.

[A]

All right, so moving on. One of the other cases I found interesting, which doesn't really have a lot to do with West Virginia, but was the mail in ballot case. I guess it was. Was it Mississippi that had the case?

[B]

It's one of the ones that we're always thankful for, for existing so that we're not lost.

[A]

And the idea was it was what the general premise was whether mail in ballots being counted after the date of the election, which is what is it every sec, it's a second Tuesday in November or whatever. That's what the federal statute says. That's when the election, that's the day of the election. And so the, the case was can mail in ballots be counted after that day? And I guess it was a, I can't remember which that one, that one was Maybe that was 5, 4. They decided that it was, you know, it wasn't. It didn't violate the law to count ballots after the election day.

[B]

Well the specifics is it doesn't violate, it doesn't violate anything to cut them after the election day so long as they are postmarked prior on or prior to. And effectively the ruling comes down to the simple fact is, you know, the way the law is, law was written is that you can go in and vote and you can postmark it by the day of the election. And it will be counted. Even though you may put it in the mailbox the night before election day, doesn't get picked up and ran through and postmarked till election day itself and then deliver a three day later because the USPS is garbage. It's not your fault. You did the thing by your time, it's not on you, it's not coming on you. To know how long it will take and how long it'll take the mail to get to its final destination and accordingly plan out and make sure you've done it before. Then if they want to say postmark prior, you know, by five days before, then change the law and do that. But based on how the law is written, so long as it's postmarked by that day allowed, even if the receipt of them is post the election or after the election, those ballots can be counted. It does not violate any type of election law.

[A]

Yeah. And so I guess the extreme logic is that, you know, they could, they could carry on election like indefinitely. Like if, say, oh, well, we found this ballot and it's, it's the postmarks. Right. But it's a month later. We can't stop the, oh, well, we found another one. Oh, we can't, we can't decide the election. And so, and then all of a sudden Mississippi doesn't have a senator. And I think that's a bit extreme. I don't know. I don't think anybody would tolerate that. But I don't know, to me, I'm not, I'm not really that worked up about it. I mean, I don't think mail in ballots are a great idea at all. It's just a little bit nuts to me that you can, like, you have to have all this security when you go in to actually vote. Like, even, even West Virginia, who we don't have general mail in ballots, we have absentee ballots for like, you know, invalids and people deployed overseas. But even that. Cause, yeah, but even that. Like, to me, you go in there and you've got all these specifications and all these rules that you're not supposed to do this, you're not supposed to do that. And I mean, you've done it every. Anybody who votes knows what I'm talking about. And then all of a sudden you can just, you know, get a piece of paper and write on it and put it in an envelope and mail it in. And I mean, who knows, like, what kind of coercion's gone on or whether we trust that the people getting the ballots in the mail haven't tampered with them or. And you hear all the time of ballots being found in the trash because like you and me, we go in there and we, we're. We're legally required to watch them put it through the machine. So I mean, I guess you could say somebody could hack that machine, but that's a lot like, that's a lot more difficult to do than people just opening envelopes and seeing who they voted for and throwing them away. I mean, we're not past the idea. Most of the people that they're, they're. I mean you get paid a little bit, but they're basically volunteers, these poll workers and these people that work for the county clerks and, or whatever that agency is across the country. I'm sure it's not county clerks in every, you know, place across the country, but just the idea of mail in ballots, to me, for like in California, it's like everybody just gets sent a ballot. And y. That's not, to me, that's, that's nuts. That's crazy. And we saw that in the most recent, you know, the gubernatorial and the LA mayor race is that, you know, they announced the night of like, basically that's Spencer Pratt guy has won a chance to go to the. Their crazy. Whatever they call, what do they call that kind of election?

[B]

Jungle.

[A]

Jungle primary.

[B]

Jungle primary.

[A]

Super racist. But they, they. Yeah, they. I don't know why, I'm sorry, but they, they have a jungle primary so that whoever, the top two, whatever party it is, they go to the general, which it also seems nuts to me, but whatever. And so it was going to be, you know, the Republican and the Democrat that got the top two spots and then all of a sudden these mail in ballots start coming in and from every reporting I've heard, like it's not a ratio that makes any sense. Like the, almost all of them were for the person who was in third place. Like a suspicious percentage of them were for that person and puts them over the edge.

[B]

Like the Joe Biden Wisconsin jump, you know, where it's like you're trending. Remember that graph? Or they're both trending and Trump was slightly above him in this arc as time went on. And then like 3am rolled around and then I didn't have this vertical increase up. Yeah, just to the right. It's like, well, wait a minute, how were that? You know, so I don't know that necessarily. I mean, we're getting to a place with technology that. Do we even need like physical. If we're going to do mail imbalance do we're going to allow mail imbalances even need to be physical anymore? Can we not like log in? I mean, I have so much security for, you know, for my work to do stuff. Like, I'm sure that it couldn't cost as much money to process that that it does. Besides the whole, you know, hacking thing, obviously that's going to always be the retort. But then just get back to you show up, we paint your thumb or however the hell they did it in Iraq. And, you know, that's how we know who voted or not. I mean, at a certain point we lean in technology or we should just go back to the most stringent in person, give everybody the day off and.

[A]

Yeah, no, I'm all for, I'm all for the way West Virginia does it. Like, I don't even know your early voting is, you know, whatever. I mean, in West Virginia is basically the same machines as they use for the day of voting. And I mean, I guess if you don't trust your county clerk, you wouldn't want that. But it's not as big a deal, I guess. But, you know, it's the idea of like those votes are being cast before the election day. So, like, it's not like they're still being counted on election day. And I don't have any. I don't, I don't know how it disenfranchises anyone if you say no, you have to show up at a polling place, you have from 7am to 7pm to go vote. And like you said, maybe give everybody the day off. Whatever you have, you have 12 hours to go vote. If you can't accomplish that, I don't know what to tell you. But you're there and it's done. And you still have the exception of, you know, if you're an invalid and the state verifies that what however they want to do it, you're overseas, you want to mail them. But that's like a inconsequential, inconsequential amount of votes and maybe they would put somebody over when they do get him in. And again, that's my, that's my other thing. Like you said, the law should be you have to get your ballot in by the day of the election. If you don't, sorry, we're not going to wait around for your ballot to show up like it's an election day. And that's what it said is that there was no spec. I guess it was Amy Comey Comey Barrett that wrote the opinion and you know, basically said the law doesn't state like what the specific day is that the votes need to be counted. And it's like, okay, the law says the election day will be whatever the second Tuesday of November. Like what do you think they mean by that? That means that's when the election is. That's when it's decided, that's the election. And if you have accident circumstances where something goes wrong, sure you can like whatever, hanging chads or whatever. But like, no, when it says election day will be this day, I think anybody who isn't being obtuse understands it. That means the election's that day. Right?

[B]

I mean, I agree, I will say that I do agree with the ruling personally based on how to just freaking change your law if it's that important to your state. But I agree. I think there's an expectation that polls close at 7:30, by 9 o', clock, especially in the lower 2026, we should have a reasonable count. And if it's close and we've had a number of state, local legislative races and things in primary, we're really close. I mean you're talking about four or five and six votes that separated first from winning and losing in some of these primaries. So to that point though, I could understand. You really don't know. Well, maybe you do. I don't know anyways, that if you put your mail, even if you are one of those, what do you call them, invalids, people who have forecause to have a mail in ballot or an absentee ballot and for whatever reason, no fault of your own, you mailed in a week ahead of time. But because the United States Postal Service sucks the way that it does, it doesn't get there until the day after election day. And your vote could have caused a tie or your person to win. That would be pretty infuriating, right? That the government caused your person to lose or your vote to be negated.

[A]

Well, here's the thing though, Taylor, you keep saying that the postal service doesn't suck. They spend way too much money on what they do. But they do. It's amazing what they accomplish. There's like, there's not like a mass amount of letters that don't get that where they're going. If you send, if you get it, you can get a mail in ballot. Like as soon as the, as soon as everybody's the, whatever the, the deadline is for whatever.

[B]

Well, so, okay, I'm gonna push back on you because I worked in for the university, worked where we had to utilize the United States Postal Service to mail documents and regularly got lost to the point where it was such an issue that we went through a third. We were printing transcripts and mailing them and they would not be, not be received, would be damaged in all kinds of things that finally we went to a third party vendor to do it and handle the mailing through. Nothing to use ups.

[A]

So yeah, and UPS threw my trailer axle in the middle of my driveway and dented it today. So it's like, I'm just saying, like for what the up what UPS or what the USPS is like, they do as much as good a job as like I think that they could be expected to do. And yeah, if you're mailing, but if you're mailing it. But my point is, is if you're mailing in a ballot that like, again, like we were saying before, you are the exception. If you make it so that the entire state, every single human being can mail in a ballot, yeah, you're going to have a huge amount of problems and you're going to get crazy amounts of ballots that come in late. And that's, that's my personal opinion of why I would never vote to have mail in ballots, just general mail in ballots, because I think that's insane. It's just a logistical nightmare. But if you're, again, I don't even know if invalid's the right word, but whatever. If you can't get out of your house, you're elderly, you're in a wheelchair, whatever, you can't get out and vote. You get your mail in ballot in a certain amount of time.

[B]

You're on oddity.

[A]

It's, it's. Yeah, you're an oddity. You're, you're a, you're a circus clown or a sideshow, you're a bearded lady, which maybe, okay, we're not gonna stay calm. Don't go there. But if you are a bearded lady in a wheelchair and you mail in

[B]

your ballot, the intersectionality that you just

[A]

created there, you have plenty of access to get your ballot in on time. There's no, there's no. Unless you just forgot and hey, guess what? Our election is not gonna be held on standstill because you're forgetful. Sorry, like, I sent a bail. I sent a ballot in from Iraq and my ballot, I don't even know if it got there or not, but I sent it in and I had plenty of time to get it sent. They sent it to me with a little pencil when I requested it. And I Filled it out and I sent it in and that's how I voted. And I don't. That's all I was expected. Like, that's the only thing I expected is I was given an opportunity to vote when I couldn't physically come to the. It was impossible, right? Impossible for me to get to my polling place or the county clerk's office to vote early. I couldn't do it. So if you're going to start. But my point is the case, the opinion was based on the federal law. That's what they were arguing. And back to my point, the federal law, state law, it was the federal. It was whether their state law was following the federal law on when the election was supposed to happen. And the opinion was the. The federal law doesn't specify when the ballots have to be counted. It was just the election day is held on, you know, the second. Whatever. I think it's the second Tuesday in November. I keep saying that, but I don't really know. That's what the federal law says. And that's what it says. That's when we're going to have this. Because we have this, these federal elections. That's the day Congress said we're going to do it. And they. The opinion is, well, that doesn't mean that the election has to be decided that day. And it's to me, I'm like, I don't agree with the opinion just because that's silly. That's not like that's anybody who reads a date for an election, unless you're, again, you have something wrong with you, you would assume, oh, no, that's when the election is. That's when we're going to find out who won on that day. So I'm like, I don't.

[B]

So it was, it was state law. They upheld state laws.

[A]

No, they said, they said the Mississippi state law was matched the federal law. Like, they weren't. They were suing to say that the Fed. The state law wasn't following the federal law because the federal law is what says the, the date of the election. Mississippi doesn't have their own date for the election. They follow the federal law. So the federal law says the date the election will be this day and they're counting ballots after that day. And that's what the argument was. And she was saying, well, it doesn't say that you can't count them after. And like, okay, well, it also doesn't say you can't count them for eternity. It also doesn't say that Al Gore, we can't Find some ballots in the basement in Florida and all of a sudden Al Gore is president. Like, it doesn't say that either. But nobody would accept that, would they? Oh, we got to overturn every single thing that Bush did because we found some ballots that were mailed in. You know what I mean? So it's like under. I completely understand that that's absurd. But it doesn't say that either. But it doesn't say you can't count mail in ballots two weeks after. But it does say the election will be this day. And if we're going to have elections, I mean, it's like I have to wait to find out who all the senators are or like who the president is because you have mail in ballots coming in.

[B]

Yeah, but one of the major points that, I mean I again going to my bashing on the usps, but the other major point that I agreed with in the opinion was that, you know, the court, I think they knowingly did this somewhat tongue in cheek, but they basically said, hey, if this is a serious problem, legislate it, make the change. But you didn't. You're just, you know, arguing the things as they exist right now. And our ruling says. Says this.

[A]

No, that's the point, Taylor, is they already did the elections the second Tuesday in November. That's when the elect. They already said the day. They don't need to change it.

[B]

No, the. Not that. Okay, whatever. But if you want to impose a postmark rule, then, then yeah, but. Okay, agree.

[A]

You're right. Amy Cohen Barrett is right. We're all mentally handicapped and we need to have everything spelled out for us. But you have to have a postmark by this day and it has to have a forever stamp on it.

[B]

Greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

[A]

With you

[B]

listening to this podcast?

[A]

No, I just, I just, I'm, I'm like if, if I understand something, I assume like and this is self deprecating, can understand it. I figure like if I can understand it, anybody should be able to understand. You have had a federal law that says the election is this specific day, not two weeks from now, not four weeks from now, not whatever your state law is.

[B]

You're defining, you're defining election as the side.

[A]

Like yeah, that's what an election is.

[B]

No, no, my point is the actual act of voting, not the counting, tabulation and, and all the rest. That's where the, the rub is or the nuance in, in defining comes in. You're defining it as a whole kit and caboodle.

[A]

Yeah, that's, that's how most people would define it. Yeah, well, I understand. It's just, it's just the. The. To me, it's the.

[B]

The. I'm not disagreeing with you in the sense that that is a wrong way to define it. I'm just saying that is how the Supreme Court has defined it. And I think in a number of situations, a lot of states have done it thus far in terms of accepting mail in ballots beyond, beyond the election day. And I'm putting that in air quotes as what the day on your calendar says, accepting them beyond that day because you've, you're, you were in the act of voting up and through that day.

[A]

Well, and here. The, in my, my only issue with it, and I want to be perfectly clear, I don't think voting really matters. So I don't, I don't. I'm just saying. I'm just talking on the clarity of it.

[B]

Black held.

[A]

Like, I don't. Especially federal elections. I don't think it matters. Like, it really doesn't. But I mean, when you, when you take all of it into account, you can vote for Thomas Massey all you want. He's not going to get anything done. But that's, that's beside the point. So you should look it up. Like some of the crazy laws that California has, like you can draw something as your signature.

[B]

Oh, yeah, I've seen some of them.

[A]

Like, that's, that's, that's not, that's not a secure election. So, like the idea that California gets to have these laws and it, they get to help decide who's president, like that again, voting doesn't matter if California, if you can draw Mickey Mouse on your ballot. And the other one of the things, I didn't really fully understand the wording of it. I wasn't really listening. I heard it on a podcast. But they were reading the law, the, the state code for elections. And one of the things was, is the postmark wasn't even the thing. If the person wrote on the ballot the date and it was right, it was okay. Like, they postmark basically postmarket themselves on the ballot. That's what they look at. They don't necessarily go by what the USPS postmark is. And. Yeah, like. Yeah, right, exactly. It's asinine that you could draw a picture of Mickey Mouse as your signature. Just that in itself. But like, so we've got states doing this stuff and they're helping decide federal elections. And I don't know if that actually, you know, if you want to clarify anything in federal code? How about you clarify that? And I fully like, you know, we're not for federal government doing things, but if it's a federal office, yeah, it should be pretty clear how you should be able to vote in a federal election. But this constitution says it should be left to the states. So it's like, okay, you get, you get down to. Well, I mean, the Constitution didn't intend for all this power that the federal government has. It shouldn't really matter who some state senator is, because it shouldn't. They should be representing their state and the only person who should care about what their senator is doing is the state. But that's not how it works anymore. California's senator, the, the crazy turtle man from Kentucky can basically decide that he died today. I don't think he's quite. I don't think he's quite dead.

[B]

I saw like the Hodge twins or whatever really posted that he might have passed.

[A]

Okay. And he was in the hospital. Okay. I was just bringing it up because this guy from Kentucky has so much power, but he, I guess he's basically dead. He's in the hospital. His wife flew to China today.

[B]

That's funny. She's from China.

[A]

Okay. But her husband's not in China, the guy dying in a hospital.

[B]

Yeah, but he's, I mean, you know, not as speak ill of the recently deceased, but.

[A]

Or pseudo. Pseudo deceased.

[B]

I was saying he's been 404 error over long. I would have, I would have flown to China too.

[A]

It's just, I read that and I was like, do what now he's in, he's in the hospital. It's just straight turtling in his shell and she's just like, all right, peace, bro. Sorry for your luck. Oh man. Just nuts. But anyway, you know, the idea that he can. We've got to deal with all these weird senators. You know, speaking of 404 glitches, you got Fetterman up there. He's making decisions for me. I mean, he's representing me. By all, I mean, all accounts, he's not really representing his state.

[B]

So I guess I feel like Carhartt is probably more better representation of you than anybody else in dc.

[A]

I don't own anything with Carhartt on it, but I don't wear gym shorts. So. Yeah, no, it's. It's just the idea that these, these federal laws are. They're the idea that the states are supposed to deal with their own elections and all these other things that the states are supposed to do in the federal government supposed to do. It's like, it's almost all like a wash now because they've subverted the Constitution so much that it's like, what even really matters anymore. Like, sure, California, do whatever you want. I guess.

[B]

I don't know, was the old Ann Coulter line. We need to have a poll tax to take the literacy test.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. I don't know, man. That whole thing, I've heard that argument. Maybe we could have somebody on that has an actual opinion on it and we can talk about it. But that whole thing, I'm like, I don't really. I mean, I think disenfranchising voters might be a good thing, but then you won't like the idea that, you know, influencer only fan models that make $50 million. Like, you have to have like a certain, like, stake in the. The economy to have a vote or whatever. It's like, yeah, I don't really know that I want them voting either. So I don't really know that I want Tim Pool voting. Like, I don't. It's just, it's crazy. All of it's just dumb. It's like, I don't. Either everybody votes or nobody votes at this point. It's like, because we don't have the. There is no, like, what do they call it, impressive elites anymore. Like, there are no impressive elites. Even Elon Musk, that, like, soul trillionaire, he says some of the dumbest stuff I've ever heard people say. And he's supposedly a genius. And it's like, what. Who, who's leading this clown show? Like, how about nobody? How about we have nobody lead them? So the third one, and then we'll. We'll wrap up the birthright citizenship. So they decided that, I guess if you're just born here, you're a citizen. And the argument the lawsuit was against the Trump administration had sued that or somebody sued him.

[B]

Trump signed an executive order that basically paused the utilization of birthright citizenship.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And that basically moving forward from the date of the execution of the order, that anyone born in the United States to parents that have no. That were either not naturalized or themselves citizens did not itself have citizenship via birthright citizenship. It wasn't going to retroactive, take anything away, but from that point forward was going to remove that quote unquote right from children born here.

[A]

Yeah. And I guess it was the, the main argument was over the 14th Amendment, which was basically, if anybody doesn't know, it was the amendment to the Constitution, which basically gave slaves the Gave slave former slaves citizenship. You know, anybody born in the United States under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens. And they've expanded that to mean anybody that is born here, no matter what, is a citizen. And the argument was that that's subverting the intent of the 14th Amendment. And you know, I don't, I have two, I have my opinion about that, but I also, my, my biggest opinion is I don't think it matters as much as all of these crazy right wing guys think it does. Like the, the idea their, their whole thing is, well, somebody can go to Guam, a Chinese woman could go to Guam and have a baby and all of a sudden that Chinese kid is, is eligible to be president. And I'm like, okay, there's a lot that has to happen between then and the presidency and that this has been going on for a long, long time. And I've yet to see anybody fit that mold that's even come anywhere near being president. I mean, I guess you could say some people would say Obama, but I mean, obviously he was, he was born here from an American citizen and lived his entire life here. So I mean, that's as close as we've gotten. And it's not even that at all. So it's, I understand. In my, my opinion of it, then I'll let you give yours. But I think it's a little absurd the idea that somebody could come here, obviously, even, even if it's a tourist visa or you know, illegally, they come here and have a baby and all of a sudden their, their child is an American citizen. I think that's a little bit crazy. And there's like very few other nations that do that. And I understand the principle, the libertarian principle of, you know, borders aren't real and countries aren't real, blah, blah, blah, all that, you know, high pie in the sky libertarian theory. But we have a country, it's set up in a certain way and having citizenship gives you a certain amount of, whatever you call it, certain amount of power, certain amount of things that you're entitled to. Entitlements is the word I was looking for. And I don't mean well, even, you know, government money, whatever, but all of a sudden you're entitled to all the same rights as everybody else. It seems a little bit that there could be some problems with that. But again, I don't have a, a really hard opinion on that. I just think it's logically, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[B]

No, I tend to agree. And you know, at first Blush hearing about it, knowing the case and everything, I was very much for the birthright citizenship as it is now. But then, you know, personally my opinion, reading it and then also reading Thomas's dissent and listening to a number of, you know, historians and folks since then, kind of explaining that and delving into it a little bit further. I, I'm generally an originalist in almost every sense and I seem to put a lot of credence in water with Thomas's argument that the interpretation by the court in this ruling was incorrect, that this was not the intent of the drafters of the amendment. And very similar to how we, in our opinion, at least as libertarians and strong Second Amendment people, we believe that so often the Second Amendment is misinterpreted, that the 14th Amendment in this capacity is also being misinterpreted, that it was drafted specifically as a mean to overturn the Dred Scott decision that was decided not terribly long before the passage of this amendment which gives citizenship to recently and previously freed slaves who had themselves no affinity as parents to a previous country. They were brought here and they were probably multi generational slaves and they had no themselves allegiance to a country besides the United States. And because of how the dress cuts and a lot of significant portion of society viewed African Americans and previous slaves needed to codify citizenship to this specific group of people. And it carves out a number of folks. It doesn't. And I think, you know, maybe a lack of foresight or, you know, be able to fully grasp what the future could hold didn't spell out illegal aliens in the same since we understand it now. Yeah. So I tend to agree with Thomas, you know, for a lot of the reasons that we kind of touched on in the last piece. But you know, there especially now with the, you know, the Leviathan size of the welfare state, citizenship carries a lot of perks here in the United States of America. And not only that, but just voting is a significant privilege first for citizenship. And you know, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that there should be some type of, I don't want to say, you know, arbitrative arbiter to it, but that it shouldn't be given out to just anybody. And I agree with Thomas. I think it was incorrectly ruled. I think that the 14th Amendment was more, more specifically than what is being interpreted now over 160 years later.

[A]

So. Well, and I think. Who was it? Who was it that wrote it? I want to say Madison, but I don't even know if that's like the correct time period, but that it was something. I can't, I can't remember the name because the funny thing is, is like there's a lot of times there's these names that we know is like these figures like from the founding, but there's also people that do stuff later that have the same names. So I can never remember some of them. But whoever the guy was that drafted it, he said, and they probably should have put this in the amendment, but he said, you know, this isn't intended to be for foreigners or diplomats or, you know, people with special privileges or

[B]

like any John, John Bingham binging him.

[A]

Okay, well, I don't know where I got Madison from, but he, it seems clear that he's trying to say, you know, people, that the whole under our jurisdiction thing is like, yeah, a diplomat now and I guess probably then too, like they have special privileges where like they don't get parking tickets and stuff like that. But like it clearly means they didn't have airplanes and, and things like that to get people here this quickly. I mean, if you're pregnant, when you leave Europe at that time on a ship, like, it's very hard to have the concept that you even know you're pregnant at that point. It takes so long to get here or something. You know, I don't know if that's true or not, but maybe it didn't take nine months to get here from Europe, but maybe it did. I don't know.

[B]

The Oregon Trail.

[A]

Yeah, so. But the point is, and here's the thing too, some people will say, well, then why don't you apply that to the Second Amendment? They didn't know about AR15s and machine guns. It's like, no, no, no. But they knew that the military had weapons and whatever that was then, you know, Muskets were the AR15s of that time. And they, you know, it's not the same. They had no concept of somebody being able to get here, like in a, in a matter of a day. They had no concept of that. That wasn't even something they could have even contextualized that somebody was gonna. They didn't even know what China was. No, they did.

[B]

They actually, they were, it was commonly referred to as mongrels. The. They had a jungle primary.

[A]

Oh, callback. Yeah, no, so the, the idea that like, I don't know, man, and you could say, well, diplomats are different. It's like, okay, well, if we're gonna. Again, to my point about the mail in ballot, it's like, all right, man, we all know what's going on here. Like, clearly those people didn't mean that you could just come here and have a baby in their citizen. Like, I don't. It seemed, it seems obvious to me, but even like, and I don't like to argue, like, what the intent of these ancient people were, but, like, even now, like, the idea that just anybody can come here and be a citizen, like, if you. Unless you're just letting your ideology completely blind your logic, you should be able to see why that would be a problem, you know.

[B]

So, yeah, and what's funny is there's a great podcast, if you are nerdy and really into, like, these type of things, called we the People. And the most recent one, which came out about four days ago, has this back and forth between someone who. And they go over Supreme Court rulings and a lot of constitutional issues and they just did. They did an episode on the. The Birthright Citizen case. But to go into your whole like, well, what they meant in that amendment was specifically certain things. It's because they meant specifically, you know, certain people that then they still had to come out not too long after that and pass the 15th Amendment, which gave blacks the right to vote. Like, you know, I mean, it was very nuanced. And the gentleman who argues basically in the same vein as Thomas in that podcast does a much better job than I ever could, but talks about, you know, the, the fact that you need to understand a lot of things that are happening at the time that people's understanding and that there were arguments like, yeah, we can give them citizenship because there were certain rights that came along with that, but not necessarily voting, just like women couldn't vote, but you could become a citizen. And so there were certain things make America great again. There were certain things that citizenship did, and they wanted to give it to these free blacks and children of slaves

[A]

they were free, you had to pay for.

[B]

So there was very specific in their intent behind it. And they realized that, okay, well, we think that black males should be able to vote, and we're gonna grant that to the 15. So he goes into some of the nuances. And the one thing I also wanna say that is commonly called out of comments, and I think he does a good job in retorting this too, is the other lady who seems really aloof in this conversation, this debate that they're having, she doesn't really ever, you know, provide a counter to his responses. He does a good job of dissecting her comments, but she goes, oh, well, you. Here's. Here's a quote from some, you know, one of the congressmen. And it's like he goes, yeah, listen to the bills that are being passed now over the past 100 years. You can cherry pick quotes by specific random ass Congress or senators and like, oh well they wanted this at that time. It's like, no, that jerk off from Iowa did. But that wasn't the consent of the majority of people passing it. You want to actually understand that better look at the actual drafters of the bills and what they were saying and then look at the actual debates and what, you know, who is actually needed to be swayed over to, to get the bill across the finish line. And those kind of things don't just cherry pick a couple of people who, yeah, they might have ended up voting for it, but they also said this other thing to take that to mean nothing that the bill actually does. So anywho, all this to say I, I agree with Thomas. I think at the time this was drafted, it was specifically to overturn Dred Scott. It was supposed to give citizenship and the few privileges that that time granted to the children of former slaves because their parents had no other affinities. Whereas someone who illegally crosses the border and has a child, a diplomat who comes into the country, has someone who's on a work visa, has a child, they have affinity back to their other country until they go through the naturalization process to become a citizen themselves. Their affinity lies with their country of or of origin. And their child who has no idea what the hell is happening for the next 18 years, really can't even vote for 18 years, has no affinity to anything else, but should be tied to that of their parents and not just be granted citizenship by simply being born a few feet across a line.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't, I don't know. I get, I get both arguments and I think that, you know, in a perfect world when we have, we had a government that didn't operate the way it does, I mean maybe that would be a, it would be a better argument that anybody born here should be a citizen. But I don't know until.

[B]

Well, and tied to the, you know, the libertarian anarcho capital Stan, you know, argument is, okay, well you get rid of so much government, so then you as a community get to decide who gets to come in and participate in your de facto hoa, you know, for lack of a better on the rules and regulations that you impose upon your community. Doesn't matter where they were born or not you all decide if they meet the requirements to join or not. You don't have that. That's why government being way too big is most of the problems and that ties with it, the welfare states and such direct control over the federal elections or not.

[A]

Yeah. So we're at an hour 10. So Taylor, you're running for the 13th Senate district for West Virginia State Senate.

[B]

Yeah. Up here battling two Democrats effectively. But no, I'm excited. I'm going to be back on WAJR's Talk of the Town tomorrow. You'll probably be maybe today or yesterday depending on when Ty gets this up. But check Wajr's Facebook and website to catch Talk of the Town's podcast or saved episodes and hear me on. I'll be going on around 9:30 tomorrow to wait on the race and the back and forth that my two opponents have had over the past several days on that same show. So excited to do that and interject libertarian points of view to this race and find out more about me and my [e-mail] I'm on Facebook, the more official looking picture of me is the campaign one. And then put me on the tick [e-mail] and you're down in the 13th House.

[A]

Nope.

[B]

15th.

[A]

15th. 15th House District, Roanoke County. This last Saturday, the 4th of July, I was in Elizabeth at their volunteer fire department ice cream social and parade and we had a pretty good time. We had a, I had quite a few people come and walk in the parade with me who decorated my truck and we drove it. My stepdad drove it through there. He was made for driving in parades. He drives that fast all the time. So yeah, we had a good showing. I got handed out a lot of flyers and talked to a lot of people, got a lot of feedback. Yeah, some of the stuff that people are concerned with, I wasn't surprised. But it's not really stuff that you know, it's one of those things, you know, are you a Christian? Are you pro life? Are you pro gun? And you're like, it's one of those things. You're like, okay, I mean, yeah, do you got anything else you want to talk about? Like, because it's like yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. What else can. What other concerns do you have? But yeah, I guess that's part of the game. But most people just kind of said, you know, a lot of people said good luck. Got a few, you know, had had a few conversations about you, Democrat or Republican, I'd tell you, tell them I'M a libertarian. They look at you like you have three heads. So that that's always interesting to try to get that message across, but that's kind of why we're doing it. So. Yeah, my campaign Facebook Ty Ward for WB House. Got a donation tab there if you feel like you want to help me out. I'm trying to stay active on there talking about local stuff and talking about some stuff happening across the state. Just get my perspective on it. We talk about. I've got. I'm gonna have a guy on. I'm gonna go to his office and interview him. But local guy having an issue with Certificate of need with waste management. So real world case of the stuff we've been talking about on here for a long time. So some stuff we repeal con laws. Yeah. So yeah, if you want to catch me on the radio, you can Listen to WVRC 104.7, listen to the Trading Post. I won't be on there, but you could probably find some good deals and some stuff on the Trading Post, so. Or listen to the Birthday Club. I might win a Dairy Queen cake if it's your birthday. But again, I will not be on the radio because they don't do that. But maybe closer to the election, I'll put some ads on there. But yeah, so we appreciate it. And until next time, don't hurt people and don't take their stuff.