Transcript

Jenna Ellis: The U.S. constitution guarantees God's rights

Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio. I love talking about the things of God because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our Creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.

The Supreme Court struck down President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, July 1, and we are just a few days out from celebrating America's 250th anniversary. And how did the Supreme Court, celebrate that? Well, with a decision on birthright citizenship yesterday that is actually way worse than we even thought. The justices in the majority didn't just strike down President Trump's executive order and say that Congress must determine, citizenship with respect to, those who are here temporarily or illegally. It was a substantive decision on the 14th Amendment that says that children of birth are tourists and illegals have a right to citizenship. So the Court held this children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily in the, in the United States present are court subject to the jurisdiction unquote of the United States and are citizens at birth under the 14th amendment's citizenship clause. This is absolutely ridiculous. The 14th amendment says no such thing. And the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof must mean something beyond just being born in America. The history and context of the 14th Amendment was during the Reconstruction era to prevent freed slaves from being treated as second class citizens or having any status of other than full rights, privileges and immunities of citizens. It was not meant to help, for example, Chinese nationals fly over to Ohio, have a citizen baby and then take the child back to China to be indoctrinated under the ccp, but still have all of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. So Alito, and Thomas got this right. I would encourage you to read their scathing dissents. And so the question is, what happens now? There's been a lot of discussion on, around whether this substantive decision prevents or forecloses Congress from acting and whether we actually need a constitutional amendment now, in order to overturn this decision unless a future court reverses itself. So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is senior counsel of the Lawfare Project. And ah, Gerard, this was incredibly disappointing from especially Chief Justice Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, who for some reason ignored all of the history, legislative history around Reconstruction and the 14th amendment. not surprising in terms of the ultimate outcome. But they went well beyond just striking down President Trump's, executive order. So where do we go from here?

Gerard Filitti: They absolutely did. This is. This could have been a much more narrow ruling. It could have rested on the language of an immigration statute from 1952. Instead, they went down the path of the 14th Amendment. And in so doing, I think the harsh reality is that it forecloses a lot of efforts to change the law absent a constitutional amendment, which we're realistically not going to get, because you're not going to get two thirds of Congress to agree on anything, let alone three quarters of the states. However, I do think that there is room here for legislation, and I do think that there is room for executive action. If you look collectively at what the Supreme Court has said about immigration this term, they have given a lot of deference to the president. So I think that what we can do is we can look to where the problem starts, and that not people who are already here necessarily, it's people we allow into their country. And the Supreme Court has made it clear that the President does have authority to end programs, deport people, remove people who should not be here, and ban people from being in this country in the first place. So I think that's how we start to look at this problem. Both Congress and the executives can act on immigration beyond our borders first, so that we don't have a situation where people are being born here to people who shouldn't be here.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that makes sense. If we're trying to prevent, people, especially birther tourists and illegals, from coming here, having their children, who then would be citizens, then the first step would be preventing them from coming here at all. And there is still, as you mentioned, a lot of room, on that. And so there have been a lot of, suggestions from everything from, you know, simply just closing the border, totally, reversing and revoking visas, tourist, visas, to having, you know, pregnancy test for female travelers. I mean, all kinds of theories, outright banning, anyone from China coming over. We saw during President Trump's first term that, trying to ban, people from coming in from certain countries. You know, then there was allegations of, you know, racism, selectivity, all of that. So how could the administration go about this, that then some other rogue federal, ah, judge wouldn't, put some kind of moratorium on that order?

Gerard Filitti: Well, the simplest way is to, is what President Trump is already doing in many instances, it's enhanced vetting. it's the whole visa process and coming into the United States and making sure that we know who is coming and that those vetting questions can be in. Courts have held it. They can be more intrusive of people who are not citizens. So we can ask questions about their pregnancy status, we can ask questions about their, especially about their political beliefs. We can dig into their backgrounds to some extent if we want to be able to give them a visa or reject their visa. And courts have upheld these types of interviews and inquiries of people beyond our borders. So I think that's really the first step. And President Trump has been doing that. He's been doing that more with countries, let's face it, from the Middle east or from terrorist watch list countries that are of the most pressing concern. But that's the program that should be expanded to every country. even our allies have people that they send here on visas that are not exactly friendly to the United States. So I think the first step is really this enhanced visa process which the courts have already green lit. and it's a program that needs to be expanded to all countries.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I think that hopefully President Trump is looking at this and taking this ruling and seeing how he can apply, his executive orders elsewhere and trying to at least prevent people from coming into, into this country for the purpose of, birthing U.S. citizens. But, but then going back to Congress as well, I mean, I think, I think that President Trump, needs to, to put a lot of pressure on Congress and particularly the Senate to pass legislation including the SAVE Act. And as we've talked many times on this program before, Gerard, I think that the, they need to just simply get away, do away with the filibuster because that is hamstringing the Republicans from getting through the Senate. They don't have a lot of time before November. And it, and if for some reason, Republicans don't control the Senate, then, or possibly the House, and don't control both, then they're not going to get their agenda through. And so this is the last opportunity and they need to to fight by whatever legitimate constitutional means, possible. And obviously the rule of the filibuster is just under, under Senate rules. It has nothing to do with any kind of constitutional parameters. So Republicans actually need to, together. I know there are a lot of members of Congress and also a few in the Senate who after yesterday's decision, came out very strongly and said, you know, here's what our proposals are. But realistically, as you mentioned, off the Top. It doesn't seem like Congress can actually get anything through. So what should the Republican strategy be? I think it has to be to attack the filibuster,

Gerard Filitti: unfortunately. And I'll characterize that in a moment. Unfortunately, I agree with you. I think that the filibuster has met its time and the danger here is that the filibuster. Look, I think it was a good thing. I think historically it has been good to prevent a party that has a bare majority from creating legislation that creates all sorts of hassles for Americans and risks upending many laws at the same time. It was a check on the power of the Senate to act too quickly when they didn't have consensus. But realistically we now live in an era where we don't have consensus anymore. We have small groups that bind together tactically for specific legislation and that bogs things down. That prevents any agenda from passing Congress. That prevents only a handful of bills passed Congress, both Congress, both houses of Congress each year. And that's a shockingly small number that stops progress when we have good ideas, when we have good laws like the Save America act which need to be implemented. I think the death of the filibuster is inevitable. And I'd rather it be under a conservative administration and a conservative Congress than if the AOCs of the world and the Democratic socialists take control and then we will have all sorts of bad laws passed. So it's met its time and I think it's time to do away with it. I agree with you, unfortunately, but I think it does need to happen sooner rather than later.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. It should happen under Republicans and we should get as much legislation passed as possible. And I think that Republicans, did a huge disservice to the country and to the base of conservative Americans by not actually doing away with this sooner so that we could have had, you know, the last year, and a half of good legislation, going through.

Kim Ark: Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship highlights need for legislative action

But you know, speaking of socialists, just really quickly because I still want to talk about this ridiculous decision from the Supreme Court. But speaking of the socialists, just yesterday, it was the primary in my former home state of Colorado and a 15 term incumbent, Diana DeGette, who was, you know, no great, no great member of Congress, lost her Democrat primary to a 29 year old socialist. And so there, that's four incumbents losing primaries to socialists in a week. And so Clay Travis on X said, every state now has a Mamdani and the Democrat party is on a rapid descent to communism. I mean, it just, it seems like, of course, this is inevitable because if Democrats come back into power, of course they're going to do away with the filibuster. They're going to push, their extreme legislation through by any means possible. but this seems to then highlight why Republicans need to get it together before the midterms and give the base a reason not just to turn out against these socialist candidates, but to be for something which needs to be some of these significant wins, like the SAVE act and like legislation on birthright citizenship.

Gerard Filitti: Oh, you're absolutely right. I mean, we're watching in real time the hostile takeover of the Democratic Party by Marxists. and once they're in there, they spread. Not just, just in NewSong York, you see it in D.C. and in Oregon, in Colorado and in Los Angeles, they spread very quickly and they take over the party, meaning that they take over the legitimacy of the party. And that just bogs down even worse any legislative efforts to save America, whether it's the legislation itself or other bills that really need to be passed for our public safety and to protect our constitutional rights. So sooner rather than later, Congress needs to realize that the good old days, have come to an end. America is under threat. We're under threat of a hostile takeover by groups that don't hold our values. And if they don't get together and act on legislation now, then we lose that opportunity. And the next piece of legislation that will be passed will be Marxist in origin.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And, you know, there's been a lot of discussion online about the outrage and the reaction from conservatives to this ruling from the Supreme Court saying, well, why are, you know, why are you guys mad that the Supreme Court just kept in place, basically a tradition and a rule that has been in place for the last 128 years. and, and since the 14th amendment and Wong Kim Ark, the one case on point, in, in this whole birthright citizenship discussion. And I think that the posture is so much different now of the country and how the Chinese Communist Party is using birthright citizenship as a loophole, how illegals are using that as a loophole, to try to get citizenship to stay. I mean, we are in a much different scenario now and how it's being used that it needed to come to the Supreme Court and it needed, it needed first to come to Congress. If Congress would have legislated, there would have been no need for Trump's executive order. But I think that the response to that is that we're in a much different position right now in the United States with using birthright citizenship as a loophole that we should have, before now closed this. And for the Supreme Court, to then just uphold this, as many people are suggesting, it seemed more like a political decision that they just didn't want to deal with the fallout, particularly Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, rather than actually looking at the language and the history and the original intent of the framers of, of the 14th amendment, because clearly they didn't intend for subject to the jurisdiction thereof to mean birther tourism. And so how do you view what Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett? Because, I'm not incredibly surprised, especially Justice Roberts, but I am very disappointed.

Gerard Filitti: As am I. I think that I would characterize them as the swing votes on the Court, and unfortunately they swing in the wrong direction at the wrong time. I think that Justice Roberts especially could very well have gone into the history, looking at Wong Kim Ark, that 1898 case, and actually said that it's factually distinguishable that in that case where a Chinese, where a person born of Chinese parents was found to have citizenship, it was because his parents did have legal status in the US not that they came here illegally or were brought here illegally. So I think this could easily have come out the other way. but I do think that Chief Justice Roberts wanted to not take responsibility for a decision that would upend the lives with a certain, in the legal system that currently exists and open the floodgates to an unknown of potential deportations, denaturalizations, and all sorts of other cases that would come along. So I think they took the easy way out in making this switch to the liberal bloc and voting with them to rule on the case. but it certainly doesn't prevent, you know, it doesn't prevent the issues that we're seeing from border tourism, from the decline of, American values, from citizenship that is being held by people who really don't want to have it, they shouldn't have it in the first place. It was a very easy way out, and I regret that the Chief justice took it.

Jenna Ellis: I am too. And I'm very disappointed in, in Barrett, especially because, during her confirmation hearing, I mean, she clearly said she's not going to be another Scalia, and that has proved a very precision, unfortunately. But she at least, during her confirmation hearings, at least appeared to be. Someone would take the text, in an originalist fashion, look at the legislative history, as Scalia famously, always wanted to have and thought that that was so relevant to the, holdings, not just the text itself. And when we go back and actually look at the legislative history, a lot of people have been posting, myself included, the notes from, Mr. Howard, who was the senator, back in 1866, who said before the Congress about the 14th Amendment was quote this meaning the section talking about all persons, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. This will not, of course, he says, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited, to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long, been in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. I mean, it was so very clear that this was not meant to include people who are here illegally or temporarily. And yet that's exactly what the Supreme Court provided. But there's been a lot of discussion, Gerard, about Kavanaugh's concurrence, because this wasn't a straight 63 majority, as some people are suggesting. He agreed overall with the outcome as to Trump's executive order, but may have left the door open for congressional legislation, on this issue, talk about that potential possibility, because I think, ah, a lot of people are focusing on that as a potential ray of hope.

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think that's just it, that if you look at Kavanaugh, he is saying that, he went on the basis that it violates the statute, not that it's a 14th amendment issue. So ultimately what that means is that it does leave some room for Congress to potentially act, but that is acting on the margins. It's acting to qualify jurisdiction thereof in terms of immigration status. And that is a hope that is. That may not necessarily be, That may not necessarily be easy to get through the same Supreme Court, if challenged, but it does open the door to some legislation talking about, qualifying and giving specific categories of people that. To which jurisdiction does not apply. For example, aliens who are here, illegally, or aliens who are here on, a visa or a transit visa or a temporary visa or a tourist visa. I think that's how Kavanaugh should be read as saying that there are things that Congress can do to qualify that, so that it's not a 14th amendment issue. That is just a language issue in a statute.

Gerard Felitti: Congress needs to act on Supreme Court ruling

Jenna Ellis: All right, well, we need to take a break here. There's so much more that we could talk about on this issue. And we'll continue to talk about this throughout the program. But Gerard Felitti, really appreciate the breakdown of this. And again, this, this just goes back to the Congress needing to act. And if Republicans don't get it together, they don't say, okay, we are willing to nuke the filibuster and push through legislation to save the country to ensure that, that this ruling is not, just out there without any sort of response or at least curtailing it as much as possible within, the power of, of the Congress and at least attempting to legislate around it. if the Congress is just saying, okay, we're going to try to put through some legislation, but they don't actually get it together, my prediction is that's not going to go well for Republicans in the midterms because a lot of people are going to be very frustrated and say, well, then, you know, what good are Republicans in Congress? And that's the question we'll talk more about on the flip side of the break. We'll be right back with more.

Jenna Ellis: The fallout from the ridiculous Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship

welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And we're still talking about the fallout from the ridiculous Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship and what happens now. And Oren McIntyre, who's a host at the Blaze, posted this. The Supreme Court ruling is the natural conclusion of a propositional, of propositional nation nonsense. Advocates for that concept will pretend today's ruling is outrageous, but that's exactly what they are advocating for in the end. So let's welcome him in. And you know, Oren, it's interesting to see how the left, and a lot of people have pointed out that the left is for birthright citizenship, but they're not pro birth. I mean, it's just all of this is so hypocritical from the left, and they do not have a comprehensive worldview. And clearly they pick and choose what policies simply benefit them and, their view of America the most. And so they're, of course, celebrating this decision, which has nothing to do with the history or context of the 14th Amendment and should have nothing to do with the future of America. How do you see, where we go from here?

 Auron MacIntyre : Well, I agree that obviously the left is ridiculous on this and they always have been. But I think our largest problem here is, of course, the right. I mean, the justices that betrayed us here, we were supposed to have a conservative Supreme Court. We're supposed to have an originalist Supreme Court. And it's very clear that originalism apparently means that you just interpret, the 14th amendment, however you heard it on NPR on the way over to the courthouse, and not with any of the intentions of the actual amendment, any of the people who wrote it, any of that background or context. And that's not an unpopular opinion with several of, you know, kind of the more elite sectors of the conservative movement. so I think we have to completely reorient our understanding of priorities here. For a very long time, the federal society made things like gun rights and abortion the litmus tests of conservative judges, and they were right to do so. Those were really important issues. But the new litmus test has to be this question. It has to be questions of citizenship, has to be questions of immigration. This is the most important issue facing our, country at the moment. And we simply cannot have people just making up some kind of version of the 14th Amendment that they like to believe existed. They have to actually look at what this means, not just what's going to make them feel better once they write the ruling.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, the Supreme Court, with their lifetime appointments and being part of the judicial branch and how, you know, the founders, intended this to be, they were supposed to be insulated from the fallout of their originalism. Right. I mean, they're supposed to look at the Constitution and the law and apply it to the facts of the case and move forward without considering the, the, the politics of it or, you know, how difficult future cases may be. And it seems like it, the. The justices that are supposed to be conservative because they were, appointed by Republican presidents that take that into consideration too often and then end up siding with the left. I mean, you never see, Justice Kagan or Sotomayor on, on issues that are very divisive politically. You never see them siding, surprisingly, with conservatives and having the left going, wow, why didn't. Why did we nominate that person and, you know, get all of this out. You only see this with the justices on that are supposed to be on the right. And so it seems like when presidents, Republican presidents, appoint or nominate these justices, the vetting process for the Senate has not been very good overall. I mean, everybody was lauding Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing and saying, wow, she knows a lot. She's going to be in the vein of Justice, Justice Scalia, but her, her prior holdings and her prior history gave a very different story. And there were people at the time who were very concerned about this exact outcome and her. Her commitment, or lack thereof, to originalism. And yet, just based on maybe dei. I mean, Trump clearly just wanted a woman to replace Ginsburg. We, went ahead as conservatives and applauded it anyway. And so, you know, we have to get out of this mentality of, somebody who just sounds good and actually put originalists, in the vein of Thomas and Alito on the bench. And it just seems very frustrating that somehow there aren't as many originalists now as there are these progressive leftists who are willing to interpret. The Constitution, however, is politically popular.

 Auron MacIntyre : Yeah, I mean, there are a lot of questions about originalism, even when it comes to looking at the 14th Amendment. I mean, we're talking an amendment that, that's a disaster back to front and was really passed basically at gunpoint after the Civil War. So interpreting it in an originalist fashion is itself a difficult way to apply that hermeneutic. But even those issues aside, you know, the problem is, of course that the originalist judges and theory that we're producing, they come out of elite institutions and spend all of their time in an elite culture that is very leftist. And even if they themselves have avoided certain trappings of leftism or leftist belief of the status, all of their social connections, all of the hierarchies they interact with, they're all oriented in a leftist cultural fashion. And so even if there is some idea of fealty to the original Constitution in the background, there's always this understanding that you're going to be judged by your peers and your peers, the people you spend time with, the people who you're in social circles with, who you interact with professionally, they're all left wing. They're all looking for that progressive understanding of the Constitution. So at best you're going to get this half hearted compromise, and at worst, you're going to get these total betrayals. So, yeah, I think that there is specific problems with Amy Coney Barrett. Like, there probably were signs there were better choice to make. You certainly shouldn't have selected her just because she's a woman. However, ultimately I think there are deeper problems with even trying to create and vet conservative judges in the system we have now.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, I mean, and I would, I would slightly disagree with you only as to the point that the 14th Amendment is, you know, difficult in terms of the hermeneutic. I fully agree with you that, it's, it was kind of a disaster back to front and, and, and so forth. But I mean, with the legislative history that we have, with the, the historical view of the time of the Reconstruction, it's really not difficult to look at that and say, okay, born and subject to the jurisdiction thereof did not mean birth or tourism, did not mean illegals. I mean that part is clear. And the arguments that Roberts makes in the majority opinion are just frankly stupid. I mean, it's just trying to pretzel his way around. Same way that the Obergefell decision was trying to, you know, pretzel their way around it. And a lot of, people rightly called it, you know, a Hallmark card instead of a legal opinion. And that's what we have. But to your point that, that I fully agree with. I mean it's so hard to vet these people. But at the same time, this raises the core argument, that actually one of the. Or several. But one that I'll focus on, of the Anti Federalist papers, critiqued of Article 3 of the proposed Constitution. You know, way back at the Constitutional Convent, Brutus number 15 and his arguments and he took exception to Hamilton saying, oh well, don't worry about the judiciary. They'll be the weakest branch. his court arguments was that he objected to judges holding their office during good behavior for life because they have absolute independence, final and irreversible decisions. There's no way for, you know, the Congress to go back and substantively, overturn a Supreme Court opinion. And so he predicted judicial supremacy and that the Court would use the power to expand federal authority, abrogate laws and effectively rendering, the U.S. congress powerless over the judiciary. And I think he was precision on this and absolutely right. And that's the issue. I mean, we need to deal with the birthright citizenship issue. But, but moving forward in terms of the Supreme Court and Article three, I think that we need to focus as conservatives on the outrageous federal power that the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has subsumed to themselves over the past. I mean, since, you know, 1804 in the original Marbury, versus Madison.

 Auron MacIntyre : Yeah, I mean if people haven't read the Anti Federalist papers, they should. You'd be amazed how, how precious, pretty much all of them are. but yeah, you're exactly right about this problem. I mean, I'm sure you well know, of course, you know, the judicial review is not in, Article three. It's made up. It's made up in Murray M. Versus Madison. It's a, it's a tautological construction. You know, just the court said we have this power, therefore we have this power. so obviously like worries that the power of the branch would be expanded artificially were met m Basically immediately by this ruling and only exploded from there. And of course none of the stuff that was drafted in the Constitution was predicated on the idea that the judiciary would even have this power. So yeah, we have a completely additive power. It's entirely positivistic, and it was created beyond the scope of the limitations and checks and balances that were introduced in the Constitution in the first place.

If we're looking at potential constitutional amendments, we need to focus on judiciary

I don't think we're going to strip out judicial review, unfortunately. but I mean that is something that you have to consider that the entire legal kind of framework we're discussing wasn't even designed by the Founders, was never intended, was never imagined when they created, you know, again, the checks and balances that we think of as so critical of the Constitution today.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And you know, this is where we have to I think look at the Constitution that will, we are celebrating. And you know, America's 250 of course is the celebration of the Declaration, which is the worldview mandate that gave rise to ultimately our highest law of the land, the U.S. constitution. But recognize that while it's one of the greatest documents and the greatest governments that's existed across the face of the earth, it's still written by men. And the Founders themselves even recognized at the ratification that it wasn't perfect and provided Article 5 as a way of amending the Constitution institution to then create a more perfect union and to deal with issues that may arise further down the road to clarify and to correct perhaps substantive powers of government that we might want to limit further or provide to a different branch of government or you know, somehow be able to to tailor our government and their specific limited powers in a better direction. And I think that the judiciary, it needs to be the focus as well as Congress obviously. I mean the issue with Congress is not their powers under the Constitution, but rather the lack of will and courage of the, of the office holders and the people who actually don't want to govern. But I think moving forward, if we're looking at potential constitutional amendments, we need to focus on the judiciary because this has gotten so far out of hand. And so we celebrate as, as conservatives or in decisions like Dobbs for example. And we say okay, this is great, you know, they've overturned a bad decision that was on the books for 50 years, but that happens so infrequently and it shouldn't have taken another Supreme Court, that that finally was able to reverse that decision. We should have other means and methods to Essentially overrule a Supreme Court, at least as to the precedent for the entire country. I mean, the two parties who come at bar, I mean, they need a final conclusion on the merits, and that's fine. But in terms of the substantive, precedential, value, that's something that needs to be explored, I think, by amendment.

Oren Hertz: Congress is just useless at this point

 Auron MacIntyre : Well, I think the biggest problem that we're facing, and, you know, I agree that the judiciary is far too powerful, but I think the biggest problem we're facing right now is that Congress is just useless. And I don't just mean, mean. Oh, yeah, they don't, they don't feel like anything done, like, literally, it's completely dysfunctional. It doesn't work in the slightest. It can't resolve any issue, even the most basic one. And so the people are left demanding these solutions from the executive and the judiciary, which were never supposed to be the deliberative bodies of the United States. But calling Congress a deliberative body at this point is a joke. Nobody ever debates anything. No one gets their mind changed by going into a congressional, discussion. They just go in, they vote a special interest, they completely isolate themselves. If they're lucky, they know maybe one eighth of what's actually in any given bill. And we can't even pass a budget at this point. So while I would love to see actual legislative remedies that operate in the manner of the Constitution intended, it's increasingly impossible to imagine the Congress taking literally any action. If you can't get the SAVE act, the most basic and obvious thing through, or gop, Congress, then how are you going to pass constitutional amendments? Like, it almost seems like an impossibility. And this is why people increasingly turn to the idea of a vigorous executive or a Supreme Court that can hand down these decisions, because the only bodies that can actually hand down anything at this point.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I mean, and I think the biggest difference between 2026 and 1776 is that when you look at the declaration and it says, you know, this unanimous declaration, from Congress, that in and of itself is a total miracle. We would never have a unanimous declaration from Congress that was on anything remotely as controversial as the declaration was at its time. And, you know, we look at some things that Congress. Okay. You know, they, they pass, they pass unanimously like they just did with, substantively wanting, transparency on where the Congressional budget is going to pay for, sexual allegations against Congress members. Okay. They're all agreeing on that because they know it would look bad if they're the one negative vote. And then they would receive scrutiny. So, you know, that's more political, but that's, that's ultimately not, you know, anything to do with, actually governing America. And so, you know, how do we start to unwind this a little bit and not have such a problem with Congress that it seems like all they're doing is just wanting, you know, media hits and whatever they individually can do to promote their office instead of actually being in coordination together to govern America. Because that's what Congress is supposed to do as the legislative branch. And yet they have basically, outsourced that and delegated that quite a lot to the executive and also to the judiciary. Because there's so many people pointing out on social media, Oren, and you know, in other places that, even conservatives like we've been talking about are expecting the judiciary, not the legislative branch, to save America.

 Auron MacIntyre : Yeah, no, again, I can't imagine, honestly, in any way, shape or form, Congress reclaiming its power. you know, I have a friend who said that artificial intelligence might actually be a solution here, here, because so many members of Congress have no idea what's in any given bill, and they entirely rely on AIDS and on lobbyists and everyone else to interpret them for them. So maybe AI, you just dump the entirety of the bill into an, you know, something like grok or chat GPT and they can give you the points. I don't know that that's an actual solution, but it is actually the most interesting one I've heard recently. Ultimately, I think the problem is that you run through the primary process. You should be active, you should be trying to get better candidates into office. You know, I encourage people to have that kind of participation, but I think increasingly, you know, the people are looking to, like, like I said, a vigorous executive or the judiciary for a reason, because Congress is not going to act. Like I just, I. Realistic political analysis, not my wish, but just the truth. I don't see that changing. And so that's why I said as soon as this ruling came down, the only real option for the Trump administration is just going directly to mass deportations as hard as possible. People can't have birthright citizenship if they're not here when they're born. So get as many of these people out of our country as possible. It's not a real solution. It's an actual solution to the 14th amendment problem. We'll still have to tackle that. But practically in the short term, what can actually be done? Mass deportations. That's the answer.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, 100%. Well, we've got to take a break here. I couldn't agree with you more. And we still have two years left of the Trump administration and his dhs. And so that absolutely is the short term solution while we're working on a better solution to you know, this terrible ruling from m. The Supreme Court. And at least in the short term, that promise that can campaign promise from the Trump administration that overwhelmingly the American people voted for, for mass deportations, you know, closing the border to illegals and to birther tourists, that needs to be the number one priority for the Trump administration moving forward. And as I've said, you know, if Republicans actually want to have a chance in November, they have got to be strong on this issue. And that has to be the number one priority or I, I don't see Republicans having any shot at the middle terms. So thanks so much Oren McIntyre, you can follow him on X, read him over at the Blaze. We will be right back with more.

Jenna Ellis: Article 5 in US Constitution provides process for constitutional amendments

welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, we've been talking about this absolutely absurd Supreme Court birthright citizenship case and the outfall from that. And our prior guest Oren McIntyre, was saying when it with respect to a constitutional amendment that you know, Congress is just not going to get it together and they are not going to agree on anything and you know, certainly not two thirds in each chamber which is what it would take. But there is another path and I have talked previously on this program for regular listeners about Article 5 in the US Constitution which provides the process for amendments. And there is another way besides going through Congress. We have just never utilized that path in our nation's history. So We've amended our U.S. constitution 27 times in our nation's history to get our 27amendments, including the first 10, which are the Bill of Rights and amendments. Have as we have learned of course through this whole 14th amendment discussion, have, have the same authority and are considered the same as the original text of the US Constitution. And originally this was a way for the, the founders to provide to future generations which would include us, a way to modify our Constitution not to overhaul it, not to substitute it, not to completely render it useless or create a completely different type of government. Government but to modify the Constitution in terms of our separation and limiting of powers because they recognized that they may not have gotten all of it right originally, this was their best effort and I think they did a brilliant job originally and the way that Congress has utilized the amendments, with respect to several of them, including particularly the 16th and 17th amendments. And, and we're also looking at the 14th now. Now, which I agree with Oren and, and also Gerard, that yet the text of this was not the best. And you know, it was in the midst of Reconstruction and a little bit hurried. so isn't necessarily the best. And so we can go back and modify some of those amendments. we should overturn and completely gut the 16th and 17th amendments where, we shouldn't have a federal income tax and the ability for Congress to just tax the American people at whatever level they wish. that was, that was passed and was actually antithetical to the propositions and the worldview of government, that the founders provided. The 17th amendment provides for popular election of US senators rather than the state legislatures sending a, essentially a delegate and the two, U.S. senators from each state so that they could have input. The states were supposed to control a large portion of the federal government. And that's why the Senate has advice and consent on issues like, the appointments of Supreme Court justices. But now when you have popular elections of senators, that is, that. That's overhauling the point of the difference between the Senate and the Congress. And so, you know, there have been ways that I think we have, messed with the Constitution that have not been in the best interests overall of American society. But that doesn't mean that then we simply abandon the amendments process. the other way that Article 5 provides for amending the Constitution that we've never done in our nation's history, is to convene the state legislatures, and the delegates that they would send to a convention of the states for the purpose of proposing amendments. And a lot of people, when you call it a convention of the states, which is the language of the, of the, the of Article 5, then a lot of people say, oh, well, that'll be a Constitutional Convention, and, you know, we'll have the entire Constitution thrown out. Well, no, just like the Republican National Convention or, you know, you go to a convention down in, in your hometown. Convention simply means convening. And it does not mean a Constitutional convention. The language of Article 5 does not provide for overhauling the entire US Constitution. Similarly, that when Congress convenes, they can propose amendments anytime they're in session. When they convene under Article 5, they can propose amendments. That's how we've gotten to 27amendments. And similarly, if the states convene, they can propose Amendments and that would have to, in order to convene, they have to have 2/3 of the states agree on which subject matter they're going to address. And then that convention that convening is confined to that specific subject matter. And then whatever amendments, if any, pass out of that convention, then it has to go through the exact same ratification process as if the amendments passed out of Congress, which is 3/4 of, of the states have to ratify those amendments. It is a very difficult process, which it should be. It shouldn't be that easy to modify our highest law of the land. But the point of this alternative path in Article 5 is because the Founders were very concerned that the federal government and the Congress likely won't restrain itself. And if there are issues that Congress won't deal with for whatever reason, the states need to have the power as well to address those issues. And what is a perfect example of this right now, Birthright citizenship. And so it's going to be very difficult. And convening the states has always been a difficult proposition. There are currently over 400 live petitions that have passed out of the states to try to call a convention that's well above the 34 state threshold. Right. And how come we haven't had it? Well, they've never agreed on the subject matter. And so there's never been a constitutionally required convening of the states. And if, if two thirds of the states would actually agree to deal with not just birthright citizenship, but would agree to deal with an overrun judiciary and a rogue judiciary to restrain it, then, then under Article 5, the states would have to send delegates, delegates and convene and discuss the text of an amendment. Anything out of that convening or convention would then go to the states for ratification. And while Congress is not going to do this, the best possible alternative we have right now is the Republican controlled state legislature. So currently as of right Now, Republicans control 28 of the 50 state legislatures, Democrats control 18, four have a split or coalition control. So we are only a couple of states away from getting to that threshold. And potentially even some Democrat controlled states would at least agree that the federal judiciary, because right now they don't like, that there's supposedly in theory a conservative majority and they might at least agree to address that. And the Convention of States project, which I would encourage you to go to their website, convention of states.com actually has these petitions that have already been passed on this subject matter. And I think the current, the current count as of right now is somewhere around 19 states. So it's the best, possible petition that could get to a convention of states most quickly. And I think we would have already been there had it not been for President Trump being elected in 2016. There was a huge movement, of course, because everyone was concerned about the Supreme Court. How do conservatives ever get a majority? No one thought prior to 2016 that the solution to that would be President Trump, Donald Trump getting elected, you know, but here we are. And so it kind of put that movement a little bit back on its heels along with a lot of misinformation and frankly propaganda that has been put into social media and elsewhere. from some concerns that, that I think are, are just simply a misunderstanding of Article 5. And some people say, well, we don't want a Constitutional Convention. Well, it's not one. It is a convening of the states. Just like Congress convenes every session. They can propose amendments. Some of them fail. Well, in a state convening, some amendments might fail. But this is right now the best and I think the only possible path that we have to save America. Congress is not going to do it. The Supreme Court certainly isn't going to do it. And both of those branches are restraining the executive from doing it. And we only have President Trump M for the next two years. Who knows what's happening in 2028. We have two years for the states to convene and we would at least have a majority of, of Republican led state legislatures that would send delegates to then pass good amendments simply confined to the issues of term limits, balancing the budget and reining in the overrun judiciary. Don't we all want that? That is the best possible solution we have going into America. 250 Convention estates.com you can reach me and my team JennaAfr.net