← VINCE
VINCE
The Supreme Betrayal | Episode 322
00:59:14
The Supreme Court delivers a blockbuster series of rulings; Justice Clarence Thomas issues blistering dissents; Trump calls on Congress to act after birthright citizenship ruling, the DOJ pledges crackdown on birth tourism; immigration enforcement is set to ramp up; House Republicans' high-stakes fight over the SAVE America Act continues.
Loading summary
Transcript53 lines
- [00:00]
Vince Coglianese
And we're live from the living room as Doug eyes up the match. Say spread. He's reaching for the buffalo wing.
- [00:07]
Josh
Perfect.
- [00:08]
Tom Homan
Hang on.
- [00:08]
Laura
What's this?
- [00:09]
Vince Coglianese
Oh, he's gone for a can of Pepsi, too. Incredible. What a finish. Sensational combination. Look at the delight on his face. There's no doubt about it. It just tastes better. Match days deserve Pepsi. Food deserves Pepsi. Grab a pack of Pepsi. Zero sugar. For today's match. It's poetry in motion, everybody. Welcome to Vince on a Wednesday. Boy, do we have a lot to talk about. A supreme betrayal. The United States Supreme Court declaring that your citizenship means, well, a lot less than it used to. American citizenship devalued yesterday by a horrendous decision out of the United States Supreme Court. But is there cause for optimism out of all of this? It was a 5, 4 decision. And some people, including some of the most powerful people on our side in the country, are saying that's a good sign. It's a sign that we still can win this fight, but we've gotta stay in it. I've got a lot of breakdown coming up on this subject. Also joining us today on the program, I'm very happy to say, is John Eastman. He'll be joining us, a great conservative attorney, a guy who's been through the wringer, attacked by the left just for standing up for the Constitution and the law. And he's been on this case of birthright citizenship for a long time, including when you weren't allowed to talk about it. Oh, he's been talking about it, and he's still talking about it. We'll do it this morning. John Eastman joins us on the program. A lot to get to, and we'll do it together. Thanks for being here. The best audience anywhere, as we are one day closer to Independence Day. Can't wait for it. It's going to be great this weekend. And by the way, I'll be with you through Friday morning this week, although I'm not doing the radio show on Friday. We'll be doing some stuff with the family. But Friday morning, I am doing the Mighty podcast on that, on that July 3rd edition. So I'll be here with you. And I love it. I can't wait to do it. It'll be great. All right, before we get into the content of the show, before we get to smacking some of these Supreme Court justices around, I got to tell you about one of our great sponsors. We've got Chef IQ Sense, Smart Thermometers. Love these things. I love them because when you Use a Chef IQ Sense smart thermometer. You don't screw up the food. The food cooks to the perfect temperature, and you know it's right there on your phone. You've got all the indication of when to pull it, when to flip it, all of that perfect results every time. To celebrate America's 250th birthday, Chef IQ has just released four limited edition stars and Stripes designs. Better yet, during their 4th of July sale, you will save 40%. With my code, Vince, Chef IQ Sense is a wireless thermometer. Connects right to my phone. It takes all the guesswork out of cooking, tells me precisely when to flip, pool, rest and serve. So whether I'm grilling, smoking, roasting, everything comes out perfect. No more babysitting the grill. You can enjoy the party. You can watch the fireworks, and you can eat delicious food that you cooked with the help of this incredible, incredible technology. Chef IQ Sense smart Thermometer. The same pro level Chef IQ performance is now in the Stars and Stripes collection, but only for a limited time. Whether you're a grill master, you just love making great food. You gotta check these out. They're limited edition. Once they're gone, they're gone, baby. They're gone, baby. Go to chef IQ.com use promo code Vince for 40% off. That's chef IQ.com promo code.
- [03:34]
Josh
Yeah.
- [03:35]
Vince Coglianese
What a disaster of a court decision yesterday. Now, there was. There were some good court decisions yesterday, including protecting women's sports. We love that. I can get into the details on that coming up, but I want to start with the thing that's got me and probably you absolutely apoplectic. This idea that American citizenship can just be handed out like candy to any foreign national who pours across our border and has a baby. Any foreign national who decides to fly here explicitly just to have an unearned American baby and then immediately fly back to mainland China. A situation where a Chinese national can fly to Guam, have a baby, and then fly back to China with an American citizen.
- [04:16]
Josh
What?
- [04:18]
Vince Coglianese
That's insane. You ask any normal person on the street, is that the arrangement that we should have as a country? And the answer to that is not just no, it's hell, no. American citizenship. Citizenship should mean something. American citizenship should be for the children of Americans. The founders knew this really clearly, and the drafters of the 14th Amendment knew this very clearly as well. In fact, the 14th Amendment, which is what the debate is all about, need I remind you, was about affording equal protection to all Americans. And yes, including black Americans, former slaves, and their Children in the picture of what, what it means to be an American. The 13th amendment, the 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, were all designed to make sure that black Americans were in no way excluded from this country, that they were included. And the protections afforded by those amendments extend to every American. That's the point. And yet the left has manipulated this, mutilated this, distorted this so far beyond recognition that they're just handing out American citizenship. Like anybody can grab it if they can make it across the finish line. Like it's a big game of capture the flag. And there's a lot of people who are capturing that flag a lot when you understand the numbers here. Because sometimes, you know, you just do the math on this and you start to realize you're like, holy crap, what is going on in our country? So let me start with the horrific news for native born Americans. We have population decline. In fact, the birth rate is not even keeping up with keeping the population at a stable number for native born Americans. That's something that we should be addressing head on here in the United States. That's a crisis that we have to deal with. We are each year aborting a million of our own people. A million American babies every year are dying in our country as the left pushes that genocide on our people. In fact, black Americans, the aforementioned group, black Americans, are in particular targeted by the abortion industry in America. 40% of the black population is aborted every year, murdered every single year in our country. There's no civil rights marches for that. There's no huge protests in American news media about this. Hollywood is not filming movies about this genocide. It's happening in many cases very quietly, but it's horrific what's going on. And then in terms of who's coming into the country, the population is still going up. So how is that possible? What's going on? Well, it's immigration. It's both legal and illegal immigration. Start with legal. Each year, 1 million legal immigrants have been welcomed into the country. On average, 1 million legal. So we abort a million Americans and we import a million legal immigrants into the United States each year. How dystopian does that sound? Well, it's real. It's happening every single year under the Biden administration. We brought in a lot of illegal aliens too. Remember that? Yeah, estimates are all over the place because it's hard to pin down how many illegal aliens we actually let in under those, under that, in that horrific time period and prior to that. But during the Biden administration, there are projections that anywhere between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens came into the country during just that four year window. So take the low end estimate. Let's pretend for a moment it's 12 million is the, is the real number. Well, if that's the case, what's happening is each year we brought in 3 million illegal aliens on average. 3 million. So you get 3 million illegals, 1 million legal. And then how many babies are all of those combined migrants, legal or illegal, having each year? Well, the numbers there are typically historically around 300,000 a year. 300,000 babies. Those 300,000 are instantly granted American citizenship whether or not their parents broke the law. 300,000. 10% of those around 30,000 are birth tourists, people who just fly into the country to have an American baby and then immediately flee. And they're forever tethered to the United States, drawing on American taxpayer resources and able to get citizenship by way of something called chain migration for the rest of the family, thanks to that one child now having American citizenship unearned. So you do the math on this and you're looking at, and you're going, wow, wait a second, so we're killing a million people a year in the United States and then we're importing 4.3 million foreign nationals every year. Do you see what the problem is here? Do you see what the problem is? When you start putting the math to this, you realize not only is this a problem, it's a crisis of epic proportions, manufactured by definitely the left and an establishment in Washington that for far too long has been betraying the American people. And so yesterday's Supreme Court decision is one of the supreme indignities to be stacked on top of this country because the court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, made a decision yesterday is that went beyond merely maintaining the status quo. This has already been a massive problem. It's been going on for a long time. But instead of just saying, hey, you know, if you're going to fix this problem, Congress can fix it. They want a step further. Now, I'm going to let the lawyers, and I'll talk to John Eastman about this coming up too, handle what exactly the path forward can be and how we can handle this legally. We got a lot of things coming out of Congress right now about this subject, but yesterday it's hard to miss the fact that the majority opinion in the case found that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does confer, they said affirmatively, American citizenship on illegal aliens. That's insane. Why would you say that, at least in the case of Brett Kavanaugh's sort of dissenting, sort of concurring opinion on the subject. Yesterday, Kavanaugh came out and said, hey, the president's executive order was, you know, was wrong because we have statutes that say it's wrong, but this could be addressed by Congress. That's not what the majority opinion said. But Kavanaugh is trying to basically open a door for us to have an option as we go forward here. But this, this was a complete betrayal. So not only was it a terrible decision, it was kind of the worst case scenario decision yesterday. And so in that way, I'm not trying to dishearten you, I'm just trying to tell you this is exactly what happened. And it's. And it's horrific. It's horrific. Now it was a 5, 4 decision. Who is in the dissent? Who led the dissent? Well, the, the dissent was led by our greatest Justice, Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas is clearly furious about this. He thinks that the Supreme Court will come to rue the day that they made this decision yesterday. And he wrote extensively about this, which is, which is wonderful. And he's such a clear and thoughtful writer. We love Clarence Thomas, but he unloaded yesterday. He went absolutely scorched earth on all of this. And he said that the 14th Amendment was enacted specifically for freed slaves. I want people to dwell on this point because it really is the central point of the 14th amendment. Here I am quoting directly from Clarence Thomas. This is in the dissent yesterday. The 14th Amendment was enacted in the wake of the Civil War with the one pervading purpose of securing equal citizenship for the freed slaves. It was enacted, as Justice Harlan wrote, to secure to a race recently emancipated the civil rights that other citizens enjoyed. The Court has time and again denied Americans this promise. Shortly after the Amendment was ratified, this Court deprived black citizens of the right to peaceably assemble and to keep and bear arms. A little later, In Plessy Plessy vs Ferguson, the court upheld the subjugation of black citizens in the form of state coerced racial segregation. When it had an opportunity to correct that profound error, it did so narrowly in Brown vs Board of Education. It then used that very decision to justify busing American children to different schools based on their race. And until recently, this Court continued to selectively enforce our colorblind Constitution, including by allowing state coerced racial discrimination in public education and compelling states to draw political districts on the basis of race. It's a disaster. In other words, this keeps happening. Meanwhile, the Court has repurposed the 14th Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text. Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth, tourists and illegal aliens. I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time. The citizenship clause added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship. Today's opinion devalues the that citizenship. I respectfully dissent. Well, Justice Thomas can respectfully dissent. The rest of us furiously dissent furiously. And I dwell on the role that the 14th Amendment plays because that is, of course, the Constitution, but also because have you noticed that the left uses race as a cudgel, but they lie to you relentlessly about race? They lie like crazy. In fact, you just heard America's greatest justice, a black justice, declare that it was freed black Americans, that the 14th Amendment was explicitly written to protect and we are all, we all benefit from the protections of the 14th Amendment, but it was written specifically to make sure that they have American citizenship and that their descendants have American citizenship. I mean, you noticed that what the left has done is they've taken something that was designed to protect black Americans and they're using it to protect the invasion of our country. If you are a black American within the sound of my voice, if you know a black American who should hear about this, the reality is black Americans everywhere, if they're not already awake to this, need to wake up to this, the left is screwing you over and they're claiming that they're doing it for you. Watch over on Ms. Now, yesterday, one of the reactions came from a whack job. I think his name is Eddie Glaud. He's a Princeton professor for some reason, and he said that the point of yesterday's decision was to make America a white republic, meaning the point of the dissent, not the majority opinion. He said the point of the dissent. So, so think through what you're about to hear. You've got a black American justice saying that the 14th Amendment was written to protect black Americans, And a demented Ms. Now guest claims that this is about upholding white supremacy. What the hell are you even talking about? Cut one. Watch this.
- [16:23]
Laura
I am breathing a sigh of relief, but I want us to kind of widen the aperture a bit to understand the origins, the provenance of this challenge. It's part of this ongoing effort, I think, to address the demographic shifts in the country. I think it's part of this longstanding effort since the 14th amendment was ratified, to undermine it. We need to understand that this particular the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment is addressing the 1857 Dred Scott case. Charles alluded to this earlier. So we need to understand the ways in which these arguments are in some ways aligning with a particular vision of the country that we need to make explicit. That is to say that there are folks who are doubling down on the idea that this, this country must be a white republic. And they're doing it by every, by any means necessary. They're trying to achieve that end by any means necessary. But, you know, through a narrow decision, the Constitution held this is idiocy.
- [17:25]
Vince Coglianese
So, so Clarence Thomas says it was written to protect black Americans. And that guy walks away saying Clarence Thomas is trying to uphold white supremacy. Screw you, Eddie. Glad you're with the party of the kkk. You're with the party of standing in schoolhouse doors blocking black Americans from getting in. You're with the party of cross burnings. The Southern Poverty Law center is paying for freaking cross burnings. You're with the party that aborts 40% of the black community every single year in the United States. Spare us the lectures, you jackass. Meanwhile, decent Americans are horrified by what happened yesterday because we believe in an America that we would like to give to our American children. That's what we believe in. And so what we need is a path forward. What do we do from here? Because the last thing we want to be is so disheartened and so dissuaded that we give up. We can't tap out. So what are the options? Well, we're going to talk about that. And coming up, John Eastman's going to join us. We'll walk through some of his reaction to all of this. We'll get his expert legal reaction on the subject. But this fight has reached a new phase, and what we need to do now is stay in it. More ahead on this edition. Events. Thanks for being with me. As always, appreciate you. Here we have, we have a great country. We really do. And one of the great companies that stands up for it is Patriot Mobile. Is Patriot Mobile. So many brands today claim to stand for American values. Most of the time it's all talk, no action. This is what makes makes Patriot Mobile totally different. For more than 12 years, Patriot Mobile has been living their values and standing in the gap. For every American who believes that freedom is worth fighting for, their business was founded on a simple conviction. If culture is being shaped through commerce, Americans deserve a real conservative alternative. Today, Patriot Mobile is one of America's only Christian conservative wireless providers, and they offer premium Priority nationwide service on any of the three major US networks with unlimited data plans, international roaming and 100% US based customer support. And you see, with Patriot Mobile you can even have two separate networks on one phone, giving you amazing coverage and peace of mind that you can't get with other carriers. Every single year, Patriot Mobile contributes millions to organizations that are defending free speech, religious liberty, the sanctity of life, the second Amendment and America's future. They're not sitting on the sidelines. Patriot Mobile's on the front lines fighting for our freedoms. They really are. In fact, if you would indulge me for a moment, I just, I just got an email yesterday from one of our great listeners telling me that he just signed up for Patriot Mobile. His name is Peter. He's a retired US Navy Chief Petty Officer. I'll leave his last name out of this, but he's a great American and he writes. Vince, I wanted to let you know that today I took your advice. I switched from one of the major wireless providers. It went to Patriot Mobile. He says they couldn't have been nicer and, and more patient with me. Great people, thank you and I love your show. Vince. Pete. Retired U.S. navy Chief Petty Officer Pete, God bless you. Thank you for your service and thank you for the note and thank you for, for taking care of one of our sponsors and I hope they take great care of you. I'm sure they will. It sounds like that's already happening. Patriot Mobile is great. Go to patriot mobile.com vince or call 972-patriot. Use the promo code Vince for a free month of service. That's patriot mobile.com vince or call 972-patriot. Make the switch today. Make the switch today. Yes, that's right. Thank you, Pete. Chaz86 saying in the, in the chat really, really great. Okay, so what do we do here? How do we, how do we react to all of this? Well, first and foremost, I'll give you the couple, couple of elements. One in the, in the, in the majority was Katanji Brown Jackson, of course, because she's a moron and I told you yesterday that she'd be in the majority on this decision.
- [21:26]
Josh
Oh yeah.
- [21:27]
Vince Coglianese
Citizenship should be given to illegal aliens. I, I'm not going to, I'm not going to put it up on screen, but perhaps you've seen by now that apparently in her opinion, she used the phrase quote, understood the assignment to describe the people who wrote the 14th amendment, quote, understood the assignment, understood the assignment is like a, like a whack job. TikTok phrase. It's like a modern. It's just slang. What are you doing? This woman, by the way, in the, in the, in the decision that protected girls sports yesterday was having trouble distinguishing between what a boy and a girl is. So it turns out that that question about, you know, if she knows what a woman is, it was very relevant because she has no idea she's an idiot. So she's using TikTok slang in Supreme Court opinions. Just to give you a clear understanding of who we're up against. President Trump reacted yesterday. He said this was a bad decision. This is a very bad decision for the country. He's right about that. He said the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, meaning for illegal aliens, which is too bad for our country. But we can easily make it up in Congress through legislation with the support of the president that has now been determined. During this process, no long an unwieldy constitutional amendment is necessary, said the President. Congress should start today to work on ending expensive and unfair to our country birthright citizenship. They will have my complete and total support. President Donald J. Trump, President also went on to congratulate President Xi Jinping on the victory. What an unbelievable post. I would like to congratulate President Xi and the great country of China on their massive birthright citizenship win. President DONALD J. Trump there's never going to be another guy like this guy. Never, never going to be another guy like him. You know, it wasn't that long ago that in Washington D.C. it was conventional wisdom that illegal aliens shouldn't have free American citizen children. In fact, in 1993, Harry Reid introduced. You heard me right. Senator Harry Reid at the time, the late Harry Reid introduced a bill to eliminate birthright citizenship for any child of an illegal alien. He said, what kind of country would do that? That's insane. Cut to watch this. If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that's a lot of services. Is it any wonder that 2/3 of the babies born at taxpayer expense at
- [24:38]
Laura
country county run hospitals in Los Angeles
- [24:41]
Vince Coglianese
are born to illegal alien mothers? That bill got defeated. Turns out Joe Biden was one of the reasons it never went forward. Thanks. Joe Biden, one of the great betrayers of our lifetime, destroying America. So that bill, well, it's been lying in dormancy for a very long time. We just found out that Ohio senator, Republican Bernie Moreno is now going to reintroduce Harry Reid's legislation in the Senate. It's coming back. Good. He's not alone. Senator Eric Schmidt is also presenting legislation to try and stop all of this. I talked to Senator Rick Scott of Florida yesterday. He joined me on the big national radio show. He said he, too, is introducing legislation now to put an end to all of this. Senator Ashley Moody is a part of an effort to do that as well. Senator Rand Paul is a part of an effort to do that as well. So there's a groundswell already in the United States Senate to do something about this. I'm tempted to say that this should be a part of the Save America Act. Don't you think? How better to save America than to save what it means to be an American citizen? Perhaps we can add more pressure to fix our elections and fix all of this mess if we combine it all together. Just a thought. Just a thought. The United States Justice Department has announced that they're going to prioritize a crackdown on birth tourism. They put out a statement yesterday, an alert to all of their workers within the Justice Department, all of their employees, that it is now priority to make this the top thing that they deal with, to stop anchor babies and birth tourism in the United States. Birth tourism schemes exploit our immigration laws and often violate our criminal laws, said the doj. Actors seeking to exploit loopholes to obtain automatic citizenship for their children, pose a national security threat and will be brought to justice. Here's Tom Homan yesterday saying that the Trump administration is now quadrupling down on stopping this practice watch.
- [26:51]
Tom Homan
First thing I saw the decision, which I don't agree with, okay, now we step up enforcement. We step up more enforcement, even though we're doing record amounts of enforcement. Now we need to do more. And not only that, we need to, you know, really buckle down on birth tourism. We have many investigations on birth tourism, but we need to triple, quadruple down on that. And look, I agree with Judge Alito. You know, first of all, I've been doing this since 1984. That's when I started on Border Patrol. This birthright citizenship has always been a major driver for illegal immigration during the Biden administration. The Yuma Hospital, the el Paso Hospital, 100% maternity bedroom, illegal ambulance. That's not a coincidence. That's not by accident. But it's always been a driver for illegal immigration. But more importantly, it's a National security issue. Because the birth tourist investigation. I'm aware. We got nationals from China and Russia coming here by the thousands, having a baby and leaving now. So we have US citizens by the thousands and discontinued by the millions living in countries that I think are adversaries to us that can come here and have an impact on how this country is run. So it's a national security issue. A huge proportion that we need to address, and I hope Congress does it.
- [28:03]
Vince Coglianese
It's a huge national security issue. It's huge. I just went over the numbers with you. We've got 4.3 million foreign nationals pouring into the country every year and we're aborting a million of our own babies. That's not going to work. That's how you destroy a country. That's how you replace a country. That's kind of the whole. The left's whole scheme. They haven't really been hiding that. Gotta put a stop to that.
- [28:30]
Tom Homan
The.
- [28:32]
Vince Coglianese
There's also Stephen Miller. You ready for some Stephen Miller? Should we do some Stephen Miller? I think we should. You ready? Stephen Miller. Yesterday going off on birthright citizenship. This ridiculous ruling. Cut six. Take a look.
- [28:50]
Josh
This is absolutely a deep knife wound in the heart of the American republic. Look, Jesse, I can step tomorrow onto the deck of a 747. It does not mean that I am the pilot of that plane and I'm qualified to fly it. Just physically being on US soil does not make you a citizen or qualified to carry on or capable of executing the inheritance of this country. We have people from all over the world, from third World nations, nations that on their own would have never invented the wheel, let alone modern technology, let alone medicine, let alone air travel, and they can just come into the country, have a baby at a hospital paid for by you and me, and then that baby's automatically a citizen. That baby can sit on a jury when he turns 18 and sit in judgment of you and sit in judgment of me and sit in judgment of our loved ones can decide who our mayors are, our governors are, our presidents are. Citizenship means nothing if it is open to everyone. The idea that you could have a cruise ship filled with foreigners and they just dock at a port for an hour and someone has a baby. Jesse, the baby's an American citizen. They can vote in every election for the rest of their lives. They can be living in a foreign country and cashing welfare checks from American citizens.
- [30:11]
Vince Coglianese
Yeah, that sounds crazy, because it is. All right. Coming up, we'll talk to John Eastman about all of this. We'll get his expert legal opinion on it. He's one of the leading thinkers on this subject and he very much is on the side of protecting American citizenship and not devaluing it. That's ahead in just a moment. But first, I want to thank one of our great sponsors today. That's Brickhouse Nutrition. You know, so many people are trying to lose weight. They're relying on the weight loss injections to do it because they're trying to get the dramatic results. And here's how the injections work. They lower blood sugar, reduce appetite. So what if you want to do that? What if you want to lose the weight and you don't want the painful weekly injections, especially when you hear about some of those side effects. Well, that's why doctors at Brickhouse Nutrition created a weight loss supplement called Lean. The results, remarkable. The studied ingredients in Lean have been shown to help lower your blood sugar, help you burn fat by converting it into energy, and help you curb your appetite and your cravings so you're less hungry. But listen, Lean by Brickhouse Nutrition, not for the casual dieter. It's for frustrated dieters, people with 10 or more pounds to lose. If that's you, let's get you started. 20% off free rest shipping. Visit take lean.com Enter Vince for your discount. That's promo code. Vince. Take lean.com these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended, diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. And it's not a substitute or alternative for care from a health care provider. Also, thank you to Blackout Coffee for. Well, for charging me up this morning and every morning. We love blackout coffee. It's very delicious stuff. Before I can even get into the news, before I can even start raging about an idiotic birthright citizenship decision, I need blackout coffee. It's strong, smooth, just a really well crafted cup of coffee. And what I like about the company is very simple. In addition to its delicious coffee, they're a small American company that take pride in what they do. It shows in every single bag. Now, for you, here's what I recommend. Don't just buy a bag, join their coffee club. Your coffee will show up automatically. You'll save money, you'll get free shipping, and you don't have to think about it. It just becomes a part of your routine. And on top of that, you start earning rewards, bonus credit after a few deliveries. And they're also doing some great limited releases right now for the 250th anniversary of the United States. So it's a perfect time to check them out. Go to blackout coffee.com/vince. Use the code Vince. 20% off your first order. Blackout coffee.com/vince. Join the coffee club today. Make it part of your daily routine. Blackout coffee.com Vince. I'm happy to have joining me right now a guest that I've always enjoyed chatting with through the years. That's the great John Eastman. He's a former constitutional law professor and dean. He's a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, and he joins me now. John, nice to see you again, sir.
- [32:53]
John Eastman
Thanks very much, Vince. And looking Forward to the 250th anniversary of our nation's birth this week. It should be a great celebration.
- [33:03]
Vince Coglianese
Me. Me too. I'm very much looking forward to it. And this is actually one of the reasons I was so disappointed to see the decision yesterday, because this should be a time of celebration, but it's also now a time of concern because the Court yesterday, in. In Clarence Thomas's view, really devalued what it means to be a citizen of the United States. What's your reaction to the Court's decision yesterday?
- [33:25]
John Eastman
Well, I. I will say this. John Roberts, the Chief justice, on behalf of five members of the Court, and I want to emphasize that five or not six, as so many reporting today, held that the 14th Amendment guaranteed automatic citizenship for virtually anybody born on our soil. And it's a workmanlike opinion. He goes back and traces the whole history of the English rule of youth, solely the law of the soil. And where he makes his fundamental mistake is in saying that we, the United States, when we became a nation, adopted that old English common law rule. Now it's just fundamentally wrong. The Declaration of Independence, which we celebrate this week with 250 years, explicitly repudiated the English rule of soil of use solely. The English rule was an old feudal thing. If you were born on the king's soil, you were forever the king's subject and could never renounce that because you owed a permanent allegiance to your liege lord, the king. That's not what the basis of our government is. It's based on the consent of the governed. The people are sovereign, not some king. And if there was any question about that at all, the final paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. As therefore these united colonies are, and right ought to be free and independent states, and we hereby renounce all allegiance to the king. Yes, that is one of the most eloquent repudiations of the old English birth citizenship, birth subjectship rule we've ever seen.
- [35:13]
Vince Coglianese
So we are citizens. They were subjects. That's the difference. So in other words, just to use, if we're going to use his contorted logic here, that anybody who's born here becomes a king of our nation, and that's insane. That no one would. No one would accept that.
- [35:30]
John Eastman
That's right. And the notion that we did that in. In that we did that in. In 1868 with the adoption of the 14th amendment, when every single person responsible for drafting and writing and marshaling that amendment through the Congress said no, when we said all persons born here and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, we meant complete jurisdiction, not somebody temporarily passing through, and certainly not somebody that was here illegally without our consent in the first place. Now, they didn't discuss it in the terms of illegal immigration because there weren't restrictions on immigration in 1868, but they did talk about it in the terms of Native Americans who owed allegiance to their tribe rather than the United States. And they talked about it in terms of what they called temporary sojourners, people just visiting or passing through. They owed a temporary legions to the country while they were here. They had to follow our laws, but they didn't know the more complete allegiance that Constitutional amendment mentioned.
- [36:31]
Vince Coglianese
Let me dwell on that for a moment because. Because you're right. And they contemplated temporary sojourners, people who are temporarily in the country. If you come into our country in contravention of our laws illegally, you come into our country illegally, and the recourse for that is we're supposed to deport you. By definition, you are here on a temporary basis, albeit illegally. You're not even supposed to be here. So how is it that you can be afforded U.S. citizenship for your child if temporary sojourners are not supposed to be given American citizenship under that debate?
- [37:04]
John Eastman
Well, you're absolutely right. They're not. And the logic of the argument against temporary sojourners applies with even more force to those who are illegally here from the first place. So here's the key difference. The English had a rule of the soil. A lot of the rest of Europe had what was called eu sanguinis, the rule of the blood. We don't adopt either of those rules for passing citizenship. We adopt a rule of consent of the governed. It's right there in the Declaration of Independence. That's the precise language. And consent has to be two way. Look, Congress tomorrow could offer citizenship to everybody in Mexico City, but they can't mandate that everybody in Mexico City be citizens. It's an offer the Mexico City folks would have to accept it. The same works the other direction. If everybody in Mexico City says, I want to be a US Citizen, we can say, fine, thank you for suggesting we do that. We disagree. We're not going to extend that. It's got to be mutual consent. That's what consent to the governed means. And people who are here illegally by definition are here without our consent.
- [38:13]
Vince Coglianese
Are you encouraged that more people are arriving at your very sane position on this subject? Because I remember. I think I need to remind people of this. I know you know the history. You lived it, but a couple years back, you wrote a piece about Kamala Harris, in your view, being ineligible to be president of the United States, for Newsweek. You wrote a piece. Newsweek published it. And the reason you said, I'll let you make your own explanation for this, but she's a child of an Indian and a Jamaican, and your view was that she's not eligible to be president. And it led to one of the biggest scandals, at least of the moment. Everyone went crazy. Newsweek apologized for ever running the piece. You were Persona non grata. That guy's some crazy person. I can't believe we ever did that. And now there's all sorts of real and thankfully very rational debate on this subject that I have never seen, not at this level. And I feel like you have been really important to that. Tell me about that.
- [39:16]
John Eastman
Well, yeah, so the issue with Kamala Harris was her mother was here on a student visa, and she had overstayed that visa because it expired 30 days after she got her PhD. That was in January of the year. Kamala was born the following October. So her mother was actually here illegally by that point. So. And. And the father was also on a student visa, but had some diplomatic connection. So he may have actually had a diplomatic immunity. I don't. I've not gotten to the bottom of that. But either. Either way, she's outside the coverage of the automatic citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Now, you're right. I mean, most scholars agreed with me until President Trump walked down the escalator back in 2015, that. That this was an unsettled question of constitutional law. When Trump started taking my position, everybody said, oh, this has been settled for 100 years, when in fact, it hadn't. And what most. And they all predicted that I would lose nine to zero at the Supreme Court. And I. And I remind them the decision on the constitutional question that I've been pushing for was 5, 4. That's a very close call. It means that my argument was much more credible, even with this court than all of the so called pundits and commentators and most legal scholars had predicted. And you're right, we've now engaged any very serious and thoughtful debate about this and people are exploring the original source materials in a way that they had never done before and coming to the same conclusion that I came to 25 years ago.
- [40:53]
Vince Coglianese
Yeah, it's amazing. Okay, so where do we go from here? Brett Kavanaugh wrote yesterday that he thinks this is something that Congress should address. And there's some energy already to introduce legislation, a number of senators saying this yesterday, including resuscitating a bill from Harry Reid in 1993 declaring that U.S. citizenship should be for the children of U.S. citizens. Tell me, what do we do from here, in your view?
- [41:18]
John Eastman
Well, so the technical legal position is that five justices said that the Constitution mandates birthright citizenship for everybody born on the soil. Congress cannot change that ruling by a statute. Brett Kavanaugh's position was not accepted by anybody else. Now, that's the kind of straightforward, conventional view of these things. But I like to take a different view, and that is we've got three separate branches of government. All three take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That Congress has a role here, if nothing else, pushing back against the Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln famously said in his first inaugural address criticizing the Dred Scott, the notorious Dred Scott decision, that that decision is final for the parties to the case. But if we're going to treat it as final for deciding this contested policy issue forevermore, we will have ceased to that extent being a self governing people. And I think Congress should take up Brett Kavanaugh's invitation and start passing some laws. Now, in the immediate aftermath of this, a court will say, we've already ruled your laws are unconstitutional. But it will force a public debate about this issue, force public hearings about it so more people understand what's going on. And quite frankly, in this 250th anniversary anniversary year of the Declaration of Independence, I think the debate about what the Declaration of Independence actually means would be a very healthy thing for our body politics.
- [42:46]
Vince Coglianese
Well, and ultimately, if Congress does pass a law on this subject and it is contested in the courts, it could get right back to the Supreme Court and we could have this precedent kind of rapidly overturned in the grand scheme of things.
- [43:00]
John Eastman
Well, it could, and I remind people, you know, dreads the Dred Scott decision. The Supreme Court said blacks could never be citizens and Congress had no legal authority to prohibit slavery in the territories in 1862, Congress passed a law prohibiting slavery in the territories, directly contrary to the Dred Scott decision. Abraham Lincoln signed that law into effect. So this is the kind of thing that in my view, Congress ought to be doing to challenge. To challenge the Court's thinking on this decision.
- [43:34]
Vince Coglianese
Yeah, that would be good. Because our two options here, as they exist right now, outside of revolution, the two options that exist at the moment are the Supreme Court overturns this ridiculous precedent, or we amend the Constitution, and that is a mountain that there's no evidence we can actually climb right now.
- [43:52]
John Eastman
Yeah, I'm not sure about that. But I don't want let Congress off the hook. I want them. I want them to force. To have. To confront this and start exercising some of their own Constitution constitutional powers. I will say this, though. You know, a constitute, you'd never get it out of. Out of D.C. you wouldn't get the super majority requirement to propose it. But a convention of states that propose a constitutional Amendment, you need 34 states to call that and 38 states to ratify such an amendment. And I, quite frankly, I think we've probably got 38 states that would go along with that. So it's not. You would never get it started out of Washington, so you'd have to go the Convention of States route. But I think there would be a possibility. But I want Congress to push back in the meantime and see how far the American people can weigh in on this debate through their elected representatives.
- [44:39]
Vince Coglianese
Yeah, no, that's a huge thing. If we can keep the debate going, then we can actually get. We can mount the energy simultaneously for the convention of States. So that'll be a key piece of this. John Eastman, thank you. You're a great patriot and I appreciate you staying in the fight despite all the arrows that have constantly come your way throughout all of it. Brother.
- [44:57]
John Eastman
Thank you. Let me encourage your audience to go to American mind, the American mind.org and look at my article on the importance of the Declaration of Independence that Chief Justice Roberts missed. It's up there on the front page of American Mind right now.
- [45:10]
J.D. Vance
I love that.
- [45:10]
Vince Coglianese
Thank you very much.
- [45:11]
Tom Homan
I appreciate.
- [45:12]
Vince Coglianese
You have a very happy Independence Day. Thank you, sir.
- [45:14]
John Eastman
Thank you. You too. Take care.
- [45:16]
Vince Coglianese
That's John Eastman with a great recitation of exactly what we saw yesterday. And I love how he was giving us a really clear breakdown of the fact that, you know, if you. If you're looking back at the way the English law worked, it was because they were all subjects to the King. The King was the one sovereign here in the United States, American citizens are the sovereigns. We don't just hand it out to any rando who wants to become a king of our country. Common sense stuff.
- [45:45]
John Eastman
And
- [45:48]
Vince Coglianese
was not. It was not John Roberts who was in any way performing with Common sense yesterday. Really crazy. And on that John Roberts thing, you know, there's a lot of people who watch the court and they say, I think Roberts is trying to, you know, split the baby. That's the metaphor they use. Although no one uses split the baby correctly. Everyone. You ever notice this? You ever notice the way people use split the baby? Split the baby means, like, oh, they figured out a way for everybody to get what they wanted. That's not. That's not what the split the baby metaphor is. King Solomon said he was going to cut the baby in half. And then the real mother said, okay, fine, let the other woman have it. And King Solomon goes, okay, now I know who the real mother is. And then the baby doesn't actually get split. Does anybody even remember the story? It's like, we gotta split the baby. It's like, no, the baby doesn't get split. You can't split a baby. That's a. That's a lefty thing. They split babies. The rest of us are like, no, you can't split babies anyway. John Roberts, oftentimes, court watchers believe, is trying to make everybody happy. I'm going to keep the status quo. I'm going to bring the temperature down. These types of things, it's like, wait a second, you think this will bring the temperature down? You think stealing even more from American citizens, manufacturing this kind of betrayal is going to settle things down in the country? No. If you think that's what's happening, you got another thing coming. This is only going to kick things into high gear. This is animating people at new levels in the United States. And the left is going to continue to try and exploit this now with some sort of constitutional stamp of approval, thanks to the United States Supreme Court, in order to continue to upend our country. What a disaster. The thing that would have settled everything down is if you had protected America for Americans. That's what it would have settled it down. So now we got a new fight on our hands. But the 54 element to this is key. And that's. You hear John Eastman. He's optimistic about this, that we have to. We stay in this fight. That's there's more people coming to his side. JD Vance also signaling that we're in a new phase, and it's important that we had four people, four justices, including the great Justice Clarence Thomas on our sides. Watch JD Vance yesterday, cut 8, react to this. What is the administration prepared to do to protect the country, and what can it do after this ruling?
- [48:11]
J.D. Vance
Well, one of the things we're going to have to do is just continue to enforce the border, Laura. This is a very disappointing ruling from the Supreme Court. Of course, we respect it, but we also think that it was a major, major mistake, as Justices Alito and Thomas pointed out. You know, one of the things that might invite, Laura, is people to come here quite literally on a vacation, give birth, and then all of a sudden the child and their family have the full benefits of American citizenship leadership. It's just a preposterous ruling. And the absurdity of that outcome suggests why the Supreme Court should have went the other way. Now, I know a lot of conservatives, Laura, certainly the people that I'm talking to, that you're talking to, are extremely disappointed in this. I do actually think there's a really big silver lining here, and that's the simple fact that a lot of legal experts expected this case to go the wrong direction by 7 to 2 or even 8 to 1. The fact that this case was a 5 to 4 decision effectively means that the concept of birthright citizenship, which is an absurdity to the 14th amendment, that concept is hanging by a thread. And so what I take from that is, yes, we've got to fix the immigration system even more. We have to be even more aware of who's coming into our country to make sure that they're not benefiting from this atrocious Supreme Court ruling. But it also means that we have to keep fighting, Laura, because we actually have an opportunity to reverse this decision, just as we reverse so many bad decisions throughout the generations.
- [49:38]
Vince Coglianese
Stay in the fight. Stay in the fight. President Trump is J.D. vance's stay in the fight. The rest of us need to. We have a great country. We're going to celebrate it this week, and I'm going to do it, as the kids might say, with my chest. I'll do it this week. I am doing it with my chest today. It says Golf of America on my T shirt. It's great Uncle Sam sitting on the beach drinking. What is he drinking? It's like a daiquiri. I think it's a daiquiri. He's having a great time on the Gulf of America. But we've, you know, we've got. We've got a great country. Fight for it. Fight for it. Despite this supreme betrayal. So thank you to J.D. vance. Josh, any other clips that are, must play with the, with that birthright citizenship decision. I want to move on to the, the, the sex decision yesterday. Anything jump out to you, Josh? Nothing. Okay, well, that's it. We're good. We're good. All right. So on the, the decision yesterday protecting women's sports, this is, this is like. Okay, so we did get a good decision from the court yesterday. The Supreme Court upheld the fact that states are allowed to ban men from playing women's sports. Oh, okay, good. So it is possible to derive some common sense out of the United States Supreme Court. Not, not, not all the justices, as I told you yesterday earlier that Ketanji Brown Jackson was doing all sorts of garbage. Like, I don't even know what a woman is. This is, look at this from Ketanji Brown Jackson yesterday. This is really in her write up, this fellow, Ed Whalen, capturing the screen grab. He says, Katanji Brown Jackson demonstrated she doesn't even know what a girl is. They, they cite somebody in the opinion she does called bpj. They just use the initials. It's a boy who identifies as a girl. I'm a girl. You're not a girl. You're a boy. And here's what she writes, quote, because West Virginia's laws force BPJ to live in this case to play as a boy, though she is a girl, it might well run afoul of Title 9 properly construed. This episode is brought to you by Accenture. When your advertising operations fall out of sync, everything else follows. Spotify and Accenture are working together to reinvent the rhythm of ad sales using automation, analytics and smarter workflows to simplify campaign delivery and access better data across the business. The result, Less time spent on operations, more time connecting brands with, with the moments and fandoms that matter most. Learn more@accenture.com Spotify wrong. It's a. This is a boy we're talking about. So when she was asked that question, very simple question, what is a woman? And then she was like, I don't know. I'm not a biologist. Well, maybe you shouldn't be on the United States Supreme Court if you can't answer basic questions like this. You know, I don't know who came up with this, but they said something to the effect of, you know, I'm not a veterinarian, but I can tell what a dog is, I know what a cat is. We know what boys are. We know what girls are. It's not that complicated. She makes it complicated through her dumbness, she makes it complicated. Now, this case was not a case about whether boys can play girls sports across the country. It was a case about whether states can pass laws to stop it. And the answer from the court as of this moment is, yes, they can. Yeah, they can stop it. They can definitely stop it. But we still need a decision from the court that outright declares that boys should not be cheating in girls sports anywhere. Title 9 has to prevent that. If Title 9 is designed to protect women, then it should actually protect women. We still need a decision on that front, but we made a lot of headway yesterday, which was good. Here's NBC reporting on it last night. And they were having trouble describing this to their audience. In fact, they gave a trigger warning to the audience last night. Cut 10. Watch this.
- [53:40]
Tom Homan
Just a quick note here. The terms that we're using here during our reporting. Biological male. Biological female. The high court put those terms in quotations in their decision and their dissent. But just so you know, we're using those terms from the decision itself. Biological male. Biological female.
- [54:03]
Vince Coglianese
Sorry for offending you by telling you the truth. The truth is very offensive on NBC. I'm just, we're just quoting, we're just quoting here. Biological male. Biological female. You know, it's, it's amazing. The, the, the idea that you would use the word, the adjective, biological to just say the truth, even that is ridiculous. I, I, you know, I remember, like, early on in this debate, people often using it, biological boy, biological girl, as a way to, like, give you some sort of conditional explanation. And I, I started telling people, I'm like, hey, let's not do that anymore. Let's not say biological anymore. We, you shouldn't have to say that. There's, there's no, there's no other version of a boy. The word biological is just redundant. You know, it's. At that point, you're just repeating the same thing over and over. It's just boy, girl, male, female, man, woman. You know, Clarence Thomas yesterday was really clear about this. God, I love Clarence Thomas. I. This guy, can he stay justice forever? Is there, can we, can we advance medicine to the point that this guy could be a Supreme Court justice forever? Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, yesterday and his opinion on the subject, wrote the following. Second, as the court recognizes this case concerns, quote, biological men and, quote, boys who identify as girls. Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women, or even girls are not women, or even girls, even if they believe that they are. Sex is an immutable biological characteristic. It is binary. And man and woman, boy and girl are the terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex. Oh, and then he quites up. He quites a philosophical study called Are Women Adult Human Females? To use language to obscure reality, to show indifference regarding the truth is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens as equals. Justice Clarence freaking Thomas, baby. Justice Thomas is. Is great. He's great. May he never retire. May he stay forever. I hope he does. You know, at some point, though, he will have to retire. You see yesterday that NPR falsely reported that Sam Alito was retiring. Yesterday they just decided, they just posted it on the website. They're like, yeah, Sam Alito's retiring. Like what? Sam Alito's like, what? I'm retiring. There was no evidence for it. Nina Totenberg just decided to run it. And then they took it down. They deleted the story, retracted it. And then when Nita Totenberg was asked about it. Why'd you do that? She's like, somebody heard that somebody was retiring. So I thought it was Sam Alito. And we just ran the story. Glad we're not funding you anymore. Glad we're not wasting our money on that garbage, that dumpster fire anymore. What a stupid, stupid. I think that's what you might call the left. And now it's time for the left. Fake scandal of the week. Extra, extra.
- [57:40]
Laura
Yeah.
- [57:41]
Vince Coglianese
What a way to go out. As always, you can join me on the big national radio show today, the Vince show. Check out the vinshow.com get your local radio listings all across the country. Also you can join me on Rumble. We do that from one to three eastern. Rumble.com Vince, we're live on camera for the radio show for that portion. And then each day you should always check out the Dan Bongino show. He's on vacation this week. But guess what's happening today? Today's Wednesday. That means Sean Farish is filling in. Rumble.com Bongino 10am Eastern today. And then the great Haley Caranilla. Rumble.com Haley. Haley with two wives. Why? Because she is great. She's on a noon Eastern on Rumble. So many great options. Such a great country. Independence Day is coming. I hope you've got great plans for it. Stay in the fight. Stay in the fight. You're the best audience anywhere. I'll be back with you tomorrow.
- [58:30]
Laura
$47,000. That's what the average engine customer saves on business travel every year. That's a 26% savings. All with no booking fees. Up to 70% off hotels, zero booking fees free to start Total Control Find a hotel that meets your team's complex needs. Did we say no fees? We did. That's Enjin Teams Travel Spend Managed get started@enjin.com savings.