SCOTUS upholds 14A

[kan...@aol.com]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/30/birthright-citizenship-upheld-by-supreme-court-ruling-against-trump-order/

What's sad is that 3 Justices can't read the 14th Amendment and feel free (compelled?) to rule against the plain language of the USC. 

Alito's comment was to object to "birthright tourism". This is a vanishingly rare occurrence. But if he wants to do something about it, why not prohibit women late in pregnancy from entering the US. That's actually doable. 

In the meantime, we have a few Justices who are totally in the tank for Trump/MAGA, whatever. Their rulings are embarrassments. 

[Brian Kegerreis]

Sort of like the ignorant people who don't know what shall not be infringed means. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/76b777f0-dec9-46c4-ab69-5df0fb755ad8n%40googlegroups.com.

[kan...@aol.com]

Brian, it's like waving a $20 bill in front of a drugged-out hooker. They'll bite every time. Maybe even $10. 

Why do low-knowledge, illiterate rightists totally ignore, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security..........."

When was the last time a well-regulated militia was NECESSARY?. When was the last time one even existed. 

Their total disappearance renders 2A moot. And it renders your opinion about as attractive, and useful, as the $20 hooker's. 

As a claimed student of history (who might get a failing grade) you should realize that the current push for totally unregulated gun possession is a very new idea, put forth by an obviously unschooed and unprincipled bunch of Supreme Court Justices. Sadly, no matter what SCOTUS looks like in the future, this genie (toothpaste?) isn't going to back into the lamp (tube). 

[kan...@aol.com]

And here's a concise history of gun laws throughout the years. Note that sale and ownership was limited and regulated up until the Heller/D.C. ruling. Until then various "infringements" were in place. 

Your ridiculous notions are only very recent. 

[kan...@aol.com]

https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=L&pf=1&ai=DChsSEwihjuCM2LCVAxVhsgMAHS3QDzgYACICCAEQABoCb2E&co=1&ase=2&gclid=CjwKCAjw0o3SBhBVEiwAh28-je7gjmptNzsQQtbVPWUKJokmpikspDB9qOSbsnbD6FuYiI62amB9UhoC5roQAvD_BwE&cid=CAAS0gHkaDUWc6MeCa3rs_ieZbftR2KDeAFZOo1EDr4-izp7RXwfSKSiHIHWH2ws1Nu7Tx2q1gL98LjhuaW58B2bANilPoIPYhmkGIkGrfZFS926B6_apbU07Lf7TIxZSDvNrkAcAAKt2pv4gf7lju1kMqWqvFwt7DsAwqsuEFljw5i62hWK6FcG-VK2_r1R7lX0J1gv0B388dpmljKk-Ava7nc7TOt7VOddONDQyts4vnd84-8T8VOxhNiwIYX1278gLIpjzBT2VeZShnBedgoBV5Gb3V0&cce=2&category=acrcp_v1_32&sig=AOD64_0LbQurPThWKqbG74bgT5NnmU1XOQ&q&nis=4&adurl=https://vpc.org/publications/cease-fire-a-comprehensive-strategy-to-reduce-firearms-violence/a-brief-history-of-firearms-law/?gad_source%3D1%26gad_campaignid%3D14820441548%26gbraid%3D0AAAAADiojuQs8OUIkq3b6kLtTu-H1vf56%26gclid%3DCjwKCAjw0o3SBhBVEiwAh28-je7gjmptNzsQQtbVPWUKJokmpikspDB9qOSbsnbD6FuYiI62amB9UhoC5roQAvD_BwE&ved=2ahUKEwjRjtqM2LCVAxWglmoFHe_4FRwQ0Qx6BAgOEAE

[Brian Kegerreis]

The well regulated militia clause is not the reason for the shall not be infringed clause. 

The well regulated militia refers to the federal power to regulate the militia. The shall not be infringed refers to the  individual right to keep and bear arms. 

The 2nd amendment does not alter the federal power to regulate the militia nor does it allow that power to regulate the people's right to keep and bear arms.

The phrase well regulated in 1789 terms refers to equipment, training, and organization of the militia. Today the militia is regulated as the national guard. 

Ok fine, still has nothing to to with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Are you suggesting that the word people in the 2a only actually applies to the National Guard aka the militia? If so why would a militia be well regulated and uninfringed at the same time? Is there any other right reserved to the people that isn't actually reserved to the people in the Constitution?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/07f1c868-80b9-4199-bb88-a4a0f3246cf6n%40googlegroups.com.

[B Keg]

Penn and Teller explain it well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ

Be nice, even when you don't want to!

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/CAJfMWEy%2B67LKrWbppPvO365jZ-%2B1%2B1hCXFjCZpkeEjnfFRvUbg%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Fairchild]

For what it's worth, I am in violent agreement with both of you...

[kan...@aol.com]

Dave, don't let those fence posts poke you in the ass too much. 

But thanks for equivocation. 

[kan...@aol.com]

So one of the issues discussed in the BOR is language. 1A and 2A both refer to "THE PEOPLE" in the enumeration of the rights mentioned. The other clauses mention "A PERSON", or don't mention people/person at all. 

So some VERY erudite constitutional lawyers, who are REALLY originalists, suggest that 2A is a collective right that adheres to "THE PEOPLE" and not to every individual. Try telling that to such pillars of genius as Clarence the Clown and Alito the Dense. They keep talking about the text of the USC/BOR; but then they become suddenly illiterate when actually reading the documents. Anyone else we know like that? 

[David Fairchild]

Morning Ken, 

No equivocation, just consistency in reason. You are right re: the 14th, and BKK is right re: the 2nd -- and both because of the plain language therein. It's too bad your respective political POVs preclude you from seeing this, apparently. 

On Wednesday, July 1, 2026 at 10:48:38 AM UTC-5 kan...@aol.com wrote:

[Brian Kegerreis]

To be clear I agree that the 14th amendment grants citizenship although there might be some question about what the writers meant by subject to the laws.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/dc12dcad-db86-4e95-a27e-4e6d7976b20fn%40googlegroups.com.

[David Fairchild]

"...there might be some question..."

Not anymore until and unless the Court revisits the matter or a new amendment cancels the 14th.

[Brian Kegerreis]

Haven't read the latest ruling. Did they address that specific question?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/3869cbaa-90b4-41ae-8b67-3ff57e0e7a61n%40googlegroups.com.

[Brian Kegerreis]

In my opinion

We should probably pass an amendment to limit birthright cirizenship to those born to at least one US Citizen or 2 persons curently in the United states on a legal permanent basis who are pursuing citizenship. Or something like that anyways. We should want to deter people  coming here illegally just to have a child that that will be a citizen. 

And we should make anyone who wants to stay in the US for more than 6 months take a loyalty oath unless they are a diplomat from another country. 

[David Fairchild]

I applaud your recognition that if change is to occur, it must be by amendment -- even if your opinion sucks. I wish Ken could so recognize despite he's equally sucky opinion.

[Brian Kegerreis]

Yes well I understand why you think it sucks but really it doesn't. We have freedom of movement among the 50 states and it works well due to our shared laws heritage and values. 

History shows it does not work without those preconditions. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/0d271ee6-0ded-4d8a-af5b-6e337d227f4cn%40googlegroups.com.

[kan...@aol.com]

Dave, what was sucky about my opinion? Was it about 14A or 2A?

Brian, "shared laws and heritage" is really dog whistle for White Christian Nationalism. Where does that leave Native Americans? They were here thousands of years before Anglo-Europeans. And interestingly, the Declaration of Independence refers to N.A.'s "merciless Indian Savages". And yes, it's a QUOTE. No need to accuse me of fudging the truth. 

As for "birthright tourism", that's really an  infrequent occurrence. And as I said, it can be solved by denying access to people late in their pregnancy. 

But as to 14A, the language was plain and clear. It did not equivocate. Born here, you're a citizen. The exception would be a diplomat's child. Perhaps NOT a citizen, because mom/dad aren't under the laws of the USA. 

But Trump's push is pure discrimination/racism, whatever. Still surprised that 2/3 justices couldn't see it. Not really surprised so much as disappointed. Clarence and Sam are sad and embarrassing.

[David Fairchild]

Ken, your opinion that the SCTOUS got the 14th ruling right is spot on, IMO. It is your opinion on the 2nd that sucks.

[kan...@aol.com]

I figured as much Dave. So what was "sucky" about the 2A post? I'm just presenting FACT that constitutional experts have pointed the specific language of 2A referring to a right granted to "THE PEOPLE", as well as the pertinence of the "militia" clause. 

I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn enough times to acquire lawyerly expertise. I have however discussed this with people who ARE lawyers, and can present a cogent defense of my point. (full disclosure; one of these is my brother. But he's really smart in things legal. He defers to MY expertise in things medical. I listen to his legal opinions carefully. Doesn't make him right prima facie; but it makes him worth listening to. You should at least hand out rebuttals with more meat than BK's usual bereft comments.) 

[kan...@aol.com]

Here's a REAL right wing nut's solution to the SCOTUS ruling on 14A. The author is one of the head guys at The Federalist, a VERY right wing rag that is known for really printing genuine bullshit. 

Sean Davis

@seanmdav

Several ways forward here given the choice of Roberts/Barrett to nullify the 14th Amendment and extra-constitutionally replace it with their own language: 1) Nullification. States issue birth certificates, and they can just stop issuing them to non-citizens. Roberts/Barrett can deal with the fallout and litigate each birth individually. 2) Pack the court. If Robert wants to be a politician who writes laws instead of a judge, then he can fight with 10 more unelected legislators in robes. 3) Deny entry to all pregnant foreigners. 4) Deny entry to all female foreigners. 5) Require sterilization of all foreign visitors prior to entry. 6) Dissolution of the Union. A nation which can’t even restrict who gets to be a citizen isn’t a nation. 7) Amend the Constitution. This is pointless, because once a judge decides he can rewrite the Constitution at will (as Roberts and Barrett did today), the actual text is meaningless. But this is what most GOP politicians gravitate towards because they are useless.

And there's real bullshit for you. Note #3, which was my suggestion. #5 tells you how stupid this guy is. #4 helps prove the point. 

[David Fairchild]

Yeah, this guy is a traitorous nut, and the only plausible risk in this laundry list of bad ideas I see is No. 1. The rest are highly improbable, I think. But I think it possible some states might try 1, and if they do, then their Sec of State and any co-conspiring public-service lieutenants of theirs should face charges of federal civil right violations. Of course, that would require DOJ actions, which is also unlikely here, unfortunately.

[kan...@aol.com]

Right, Dave. #1 is highly illegal; but the current DOJ seems comfortable with all kinds of unlawful acts, as long as they benefit Trump. 

Can't wait for the DOJ to do "J" for ordinary citizens rather than POTUS and his cronies. 

[Brian Kegerreis]

Like when the Doj went after Catholics at school board meetings or was that the FBI?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/8e300caf-db85-414f-b5d1-71dd03833283n%40googlegroups.com.

[kan...@aol.com]

https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/118055/documents/HHRG-119-JU13-20250402-SD001.pdf

Like when you fudged the FACTS once again. Brian, you have a serious tendency to publish bullshit. What happened is that a Richmond FBI office issued a memo suggesting that some Catholics may be connected to domestic terrorist activities. It was quickly determined that there was no such connection. Game over. It wasn't the DOJ under Biden/Garland; it was a local FBI office. The issue quickly died under proper investigation. 

That's pretty much UNLIKE today's DOJ; which targets multiple people with ZERO evidence. And they never call off their witch hunts until grand juries fail to indict. As you  know, and have said, Brian, a grand jury will usually indict a ham sandwich. And this DOJ has had multiple cases with  "no true bill" rulings. It's a sign of embarrassing incompetence and obvious snipe hunting. It's unlike any admin ever. 

But thanks for playing "What would Fox News do to cloud the issue?" Keeps us on our toes.