Loading summary
Transcript3 lines
- [00:00]
A
Running a business shouldn't feel like surviving a software group project. One app for accounting, another for inventory, another for sales, and somehow none of them talk to each other. That's where Odoo comes in, an all in one business management software that brings every part of your business together, from sales and accounting to inventory and marketing, all in one powerful platform. No messy integrations, no bouncing between tabs, and best of all, no spreadsheets. Stop managing software and start managing your business with one unified system. Try for free today@odoo.com that's O D
- [00:36]
B
O O.com when maintaining your daily wellness rituals is important to you, the change in routine during the summer can feel daunting. Cachava's new travel packs help you stick to your daily ritual even when you're on the go. Just one packet of Cachava's all in One Nutrition Shake provides complete nutrition with 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, GRE adaptogens, and much more. So you'll be fueled and ready for wherever life or your summer adventures take you. No fillers, no nonsense, just the good stuff your body craves. Plus, it actually tastes delicious, but you can try it for yourself because the variety pack includes all six delicious fan favorites Chocolate, vanilla, chai, matcha, coconut, acai and strawberry. So instead of worrying about sticking to your daily ritual, simplify it with Kachava. Go to kachava.com and use code news for 15% off. That's K A C H-A-V A.com code
- [01:37]
C
news we have massive breaking news this morning. The United States Supreme Court has rejected Donald Trump's attempt to rewrite the 14th Amendment and to end birthright citizenship in the United States of America. Donald Trump sought to end birthright citizenship by signing an executive order that would have made it such that if you are a child born in the United States to two undocumented parents, you no longer retain automatic citizenship simply for being born here, despite the text of the 14th Amendment. This morning, the Supreme Court, in a 6:3 decision with multiple conservative justices in the majority, ruled a Donald Trump's executive order is unconstitutional. We have other Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance law and trans athletes. I have the latest Like Comment Share and if you can subscribe to Support My work really means the world to me. My substack below. It's how you keep me caffeinated, keep me going In a crazy day like today, I want to begin with the big news, which is the birthright citizenship case. This is the breakdown Chief Justice Roberts delivered The opinion of the Court in which Justice Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett Jackson joined. Jackson filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Sotomayor joined as an introduction. Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in judgment and dissenting in part. So it's a 6354 decision. It really depends on how you look at it. But at the end of the day, Trump lost. Trump lost big. And I want to go through the opinion with you. The question presented is whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country under the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States of the state wherein they reside. On January 20, 2025, Trump issued executive order number 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. The order provides that children born in the United States parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present here are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus do not qualify for citizenship under the 14th Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality act, which uses the same language held children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are citizens at birth, are under the 14th amendment's citizenship clause. That is the holding that if you are an undocumented child born if you are a child born in the United States to two undocumented parents, you are a United States citizen. It's a monumental ruling. And it really looks at the text of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It's 194 pages, and I've read parts of it. I'm going to read through all of it later to really fundamentally understand where the Court got it got its ruling from. But it's not a surprising ruling. If you listen to the way the justices essentially, essentially, what is it called? Peppered questions on both sides, you would realize that this ruling was coming. Now, I do want to touch on Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence briefly. Justice Kavanaugh ruled that the Executive Order doesn't violate the 14th Amendment, but it does violate Title 8 USC Section 14. Oh. So essentially, Kavanaugh says that consistent with the 14th Amendment, Congress could amend Section 1401 to enact new legislation establishing exceptions for birthright citizenship. Congress has not done so. So Kavanaugh rules that essentially children born here in the United States. And the concurrence opinion is not the majority opinion. It's not the opinion of the court. But he essentially says this doesn't violate the 14th Amendment. It does violate Title 8 USC Section 1401, which is a different statute. And well, Congress could theoretically change that if it wanted to. That's what Kavanaugh says. But ultimately he agrees that if you are born in the United States to two undocumented parents, currently you are a US citizen. So it's a 5463 decision. Let's take a look at the dissent. The dissenting opinion, this is from Justice Gorsuch. He writes, quote about that. However, I harbor doubts. Perhaps Wong Kim Ark does not squarely foreclose the government's position. After all, the case addressed a child born to parents who lawfully resided in this country. Still I wonder, is a child born here to parents who have long chosen to make this nation their permanent home not a Citizen under the 14th Amendment solely because his parents presence violates statutory law? Those parents are not domiciled here. There are. Then where are they domiciled? And if the answer is nowhere, how can we reconcile that conclusion with the court's long standing recognition that every person is domiciled somewhere because the executive order is not facially invalid? These questions may not properly be for us, but the answers are undeniably important to a nation committed to a view of citizenship open to all children born here to parents who can call their country their home. So essentially major loss for Donald Trump. I do want to run through a couple more opinions today. The first one was the trans athletes case title. I'm like title 11. I believe I6 I'm not 100% sure and I'm sorry for this. I'm really bad with Roman numerals. Anyways, the supreme court ruled. It's a 6390 decision and I'll explain why. So the court upheld laws banning transgender girls and women from competing on female sports teams. The court ruled that essentially the law allows schools to maintain separate boys and girls teams based on biological sexual. Now why do I say this is 6390 decision? 90 decision in that the justices all agreed that this was going to be the ultimate outcome. Six, three on equal protection grounds. So on equal protection grounds you had three liberal justices in the dissenting opinion and six conservatives in the majority. But ultimately on the holding of the court in this case, all nine agreed. And then you had another case involving campaign finance laws. This is the National Republican Senatorial Committee versus Federal Election Commission. And here the court ruled also in a 6:3 decision, essentially struck down federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their own candidates, ruling that restrictions violate the First Amendment. The decision overturns a 2001 precedent that had upheld spending caps and is now expected to allow political parties to spend significantly more money to directly alongside candidates during campaigns. I do want to read you part of a dissent from Justice Kagan, quote, and with that pass through mechanism comes the danger of quid pro quo corruption, as if the base limit itself for a half a million dollars. When this court in McCutcheon invalidated aggregate limits, Justice Breyer wrote in dissent, quote, today's decision eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve. I'm not sure what to call a remnant of a remnant, but that is what the court has left today and the result will be what Justice Breyer warned of a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption and thus to preserve our institution's democratic legitimacy. So that's where we're at right now. It's honestly a significant day. If you had to look at who won, who lost. The Trump administration won on two cases, the nrsc, the campaign finance case, and also the trans athletes case, which to me was kind of surprising that it was essentially a 90 decision and ruling. So that's number one. But if you look at the birthright citizenship case, which is what Trump has been begging for for so long, this is a major ruling against him, a major loss for him, and it ultimately invalidates his executive order. It invalidates a lot of what he plans on doing in terms of immigration work. So we'll see what happens. Like Comment Share subscribe to my substack to support my work Link below and I'll see you.