1
00:00:06,480 --> 00:00:10,200
Speaker 1: I want to go to my next guest. I want

2
00:00:10,200 --> 00:00:14,000
Speaker 1: to go to my next guest, and that is that

3
00:00:14,200 --> 00:00:19,400
Speaker 1: is Zach Smith of the Heritage Foundation. Zach, I hardly

4
00:00:19,640 --> 00:00:24,440
Speaker 1: ever get to see you looking GQ live. Normally we

5
00:00:24,520 --> 00:00:28,280
Speaker 1: have normally we have a picture. Normally we have like

6
00:00:28,320 --> 00:00:32,120
Speaker 1: this ready to go poster of Zack Smith up in

7
00:00:32,200 --> 00:00:35,600
Speaker 1: case he's not looking GQ at the moment. So now

8
00:00:35,640 --> 00:00:39,840
Speaker 1: he's up and he's at him. Uh, and he's looking GQ. Uh.

9
00:00:39,920 --> 00:00:41,960
Speaker 1: I want to get to the birthright and of course

10
00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:46,440
Speaker 1: he's with Heritage found Foundation. Uh uh a senior legal

11
00:00:46,520 --> 00:00:49,720
Speaker 1: specialist there or fellow there at the Heritage Foundation. His

12
00:00:49,920 --> 00:00:52,960
Speaker 1: resume is just too insane. I would take up the whole,

13
00:00:53,280 --> 00:00:56,880
Speaker 1: the whole segment to list. But he's extremely wise and

14
00:00:56,920 --> 00:00:59,880
Speaker 1: intelligent when it comes to constitutional law, and we have

15
00:01:00,160 --> 00:01:04,120
Speaker 1: him on frequently because we love his takes on things,

16
00:01:04,160 --> 00:01:07,720
Speaker 1: his take on things. Before we get to the birthright

17
00:01:07,760 --> 00:01:12,959
Speaker 1: citizenship case, which I believe is probably one of the largest,

18
00:01:13,240 --> 00:01:17,000
Speaker 1: if not the largest, in modern American history, and I'll

19
00:01:17,040 --> 00:01:21,320
Speaker 1: be frank with you from the get go, I'm not

20
00:01:21,480 --> 00:01:23,840
Speaker 1: necessarily impressed by some of the arguments that I heard

21
00:01:23,840 --> 00:01:26,840
Speaker 1: by sour yesterday Zach. But before we get to that,

22
00:01:26,880 --> 00:01:29,919
Speaker 1: there was other court cases, some that I've even forgot

23
00:01:29,920 --> 00:01:32,279
Speaker 1: about that I was excited about last week that the

24
00:01:32,319 --> 00:01:35,120
Speaker 1: Supreme Court of the United States heard and it looks

25
00:01:35,160 --> 00:01:37,480
Speaker 1: like there may be some conservative victories. Can you kind

26
00:01:37,480 --> 00:01:39,640
Speaker 1: of bring us up to speed of what's been happening

27
00:01:39,840 --> 00:01:41,960
Speaker 1: in the Supreme Court in the last week or two.

28
00:01:42,319 --> 00:01:44,040
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course, happy to do it. Thanks for having

29
00:01:44,040 --> 00:01:46,000
Speaker 2: me on the show this morning, Carl. You know most

30
00:01:46,000 --> 00:01:48,840
Speaker 2: people prefer not looking at me when I'm on the show.

31
00:01:50,240 --> 00:01:53,280
Speaker 2: It's to be here and to be with you. We do,

32
00:01:53,360 --> 00:01:56,800
Speaker 2: we do. We love seeing you. Well. So, the big

33
00:01:56,840 --> 00:01:59,320
Speaker 2: case that the Court released a decision on earlier this

34
00:01:59,360 --> 00:02:02,240
Speaker 2: week was a case called Childs versus Salazar. Now you

35
00:02:02,280 --> 00:02:05,680
Speaker 2: may remember the state of Colorado passed a law banning

36
00:02:05,920 --> 00:02:10,400
Speaker 2: what they referred to as conversion therapy. Essentially, what Colorado

37
00:02:10,520 --> 00:02:14,359
Speaker 2: in several other states, Blue states in particular, have purported

38
00:02:14,440 --> 00:02:17,360
Speaker 2: to do is to ban therapists from being able to

39
00:02:17,480 --> 00:02:22,600
Speaker 2: affirm a client's biological gender. So in Colorado, what happened

40
00:02:22,600 --> 00:02:26,040
Speaker 2: there was a therapist. She only provided talk therapy to clients.

41
00:02:26,080 --> 00:02:29,800
Speaker 2: She didn't prescribe medications, she didn't do other procedures. She

42
00:02:29,919 --> 00:02:33,360
Speaker 2: simply provided talk therapy, and she wanted to be able

43
00:02:33,400 --> 00:02:36,160
Speaker 2: to tell a client. If someone came to her and said,

44
00:02:36,160 --> 00:02:38,079
Speaker 2: I was born a woman, but I want to transition

45
00:02:38,160 --> 00:02:39,840
Speaker 2: to be a man, or I was born a man

46
00:02:39,880 --> 00:02:42,480
Speaker 2: and I want transition to be a woman, she would

47
00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:46,520
Speaker 2: tell them, no, you should affirm your biological gender. If

48
00:02:46,520 --> 00:02:50,200
Speaker 2: you were born a female, God created you as a female.

49
00:02:50,280 --> 00:02:53,320
Speaker 2: If you're born a male, God created you as a male.

50
00:02:53,680 --> 00:03:00,480
Speaker 2: And yet Colorado purported to ban that. So sadly, this individual,

51
00:03:00,560 --> 00:03:03,080
Speaker 2: this therapist, had to take your case all the way

52
00:03:03,120 --> 00:03:06,400
Speaker 2: to the US Supreme Court. Were fortunately in an eight

53
00:03:06,480 --> 00:03:10,240
Speaker 2: to one decision, with only Justice Kantanji Brown Jackson descending.

54
00:03:10,760 --> 00:03:14,280
Speaker 2: The justices said essentially that the lower federal courts hadn't

55
00:03:14,280 --> 00:03:18,200
Speaker 2: applied to correct standard when evaluating her claims. They strongly

56
00:03:18,320 --> 00:03:21,800
Speaker 2: hinted that Colorado's law would violate the First Amendment's free

57
00:03:21,800 --> 00:03:24,840
Speaker 2: speech clause. I think it probably does, and I suspect

58
00:03:24,840 --> 00:03:28,680
Speaker 2: the lower federal courts will and should find that it does.

59
00:03:29,480 --> 00:03:32,760
Speaker 2: But Justice Neil Gorsich, writing for the majority of the justices,

60
00:03:32,960 --> 00:03:37,120
Speaker 2: all of the justices except for Justice Jefson, of course,

61
00:03:37,960 --> 00:03:42,760
Speaker 2: essentially said look, our First Amendment is designed to cover

62
00:03:42,880 --> 00:03:45,600
Speaker 2: a broad range of speech, and that this speech is

63
00:03:45,880 --> 00:03:48,360
Speaker 2: likely included as well, you know.

64
00:03:48,480 --> 00:03:51,600
Speaker 1: And Zach Smith comes at this from a point of

65
00:03:51,640 --> 00:03:55,040
Speaker 1: the llegallees that come from it, from the perspective of

66
00:03:55,120 --> 00:03:58,560
Speaker 1: the ghetto, fabulous street guy, the layman in the here.

67
00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:02,680
Speaker 1: And I'm just I'm sitting here thinking conversion therapy. So

68
00:04:02,840 --> 00:04:06,240
Speaker 1: it is it is against the law was in Colorado

69
00:04:06,640 --> 00:04:11,880
Speaker 1: for a therapist to either give alternatives or counsel someone

70
00:04:11,920 --> 00:04:17,240
Speaker 1: that suffers with a gender dysphoria and perhaps encourage them

71
00:04:17,279 --> 00:04:22,600
Speaker 1: to think through this do something else. So that's against

72
00:04:22,600 --> 00:04:28,760
Speaker 1: the law. But telling a counselor that does have a

73
00:04:28,800 --> 00:04:33,240
Speaker 1: First Amendment speeches, they better do something imposed by the

74
00:04:33,279 --> 00:04:39,320
Speaker 1: government that's constitutional somehow. This is I mean, I cannot believe.

75
00:04:40,400 --> 00:04:43,640
Speaker 1: I should maybe I should stop saying that. I can't believe.

76
00:04:43,960 --> 00:04:47,880
Speaker 1: But it is crazy to me how far left these

77
00:04:48,080 --> 00:04:51,600
Speaker 1: people are going. It is insane, and it's crazy to

78
00:04:51,640 --> 00:04:55,520
Speaker 1: me that they'll call Trump a tyrant and a dictator

79
00:04:55,880 --> 00:05:00,599
Speaker 1: and literally impose their worldview on people something that is

80
00:05:00,640 --> 00:05:05,440
Speaker 1: completely unscientific. Despite what the brilliant Kutandre Brown Jackson says.

81
00:05:06,040 --> 00:05:08,400
Speaker 1: I mean, this is insane to me. This is a

82
00:05:08,400 --> 00:05:11,680
Speaker 1: threat not just the freedom of speech, but freedom of religion.

83
00:05:11,960 --> 00:05:15,279
Speaker 1: You have a right to believe what you want to

84
00:05:15,320 --> 00:05:17,040
Speaker 1: believe in this country. Am I off?

85
00:05:17,480 --> 00:05:19,640
Speaker 2: No, you're not off at all, Carl. And look, I

86
00:05:19,680 --> 00:05:24,400
Speaker 2: certainly think you know there were free exercise of religion

87
00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:27,360
Speaker 2: implications in this case. But because of the way case

88
00:05:27,440 --> 00:05:30,920
Speaker 2: law has developed, those free speech claims can be easier

89
00:05:30,960 --> 00:05:33,560
Speaker 2: to succeed on. And I suspect that's why this therapist

90
00:05:33,839 --> 00:05:36,560
Speaker 2: brought this as a free speech claim, particularly because she

91
00:05:36,760 --> 00:05:39,719
Speaker 2: only brought talk therapy. But if we step out and

92
00:05:39,760 --> 00:05:42,720
Speaker 2: look at the forty thousand foot picture, Carl, Colorado in

93
00:05:42,760 --> 00:05:46,040
Speaker 2: particular has been a very egregious offender. Keep in mind

94
00:05:46,320 --> 00:05:48,719
Speaker 2: that Colorado was the same state where they tried to

95
00:05:48,720 --> 00:05:51,880
Speaker 2: penalize Jack Phillips, the cake baker who wouldn't make a

96
00:05:51,880 --> 00:05:55,039
Speaker 2: cake for a same sex wedding. Even after he went

97
00:05:55,080 --> 00:05:57,760
Speaker 2: to the US Supreme Court, someone hauled him back into

98
00:05:57,760 --> 00:06:02,159
Speaker 2: Colorado's courts, where he has spent almost another decade litigating

99
00:06:02,720 --> 00:06:05,840
Speaker 2: over other issues as well. And so you're seeing a

100
00:06:05,880 --> 00:06:11,479
Speaker 2: real push by Colorado, California, New York, Illinois, other very liberal,

101
00:06:11,600 --> 00:06:15,359
Speaker 2: very deep blue states to try to impose through the

102
00:06:15,440 --> 00:06:20,520
Speaker 2: law their own very radical ideology, their own very radical

103
00:06:20,560 --> 00:06:26,240
Speaker 2: policies on patients, on parents, on everyday citizens. Unfortunately, at

104
00:06:26,320 --> 00:06:28,520
Speaker 2: least in this Child's versus Salve is our case, the

105
00:06:28,560 --> 00:06:31,800
Speaker 2: Supreme Court said, our constitution does not permit that.

106
00:06:32,720 --> 00:06:34,800
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, Are there any other cases that we

107
00:06:34,839 --> 00:06:37,680
Speaker 1: should be aware of before we get to the birthright citizen.

108
00:06:38,400 --> 00:06:40,960
Speaker 2: Well, there's a couple of big cases coming down the pipeline.

109
00:06:40,960 --> 00:06:43,560
Speaker 2: There are several big cases we're still waiting for the

110
00:06:43,600 --> 00:06:46,599
Speaker 2: Court's decisions on. One of the biggest ones a lot

111
00:06:46,640 --> 00:06:49,240
Speaker 2: of people are watching is Louisiana versus KLA. This is

112
00:06:49,240 --> 00:06:52,400
Speaker 2: an election integrity case. It deals with the ability of

113
00:06:52,440 --> 00:06:55,599
Speaker 2: states to redistrict the Section two of the Voting Rights

114
00:06:55,600 --> 00:06:58,800
Speaker 2: Act conflict with the equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

115
00:06:59,360 --> 00:07:03,279
Speaker 2: There's some speculation that Justice Samuel Alito may have the

116
00:07:03,360 --> 00:07:06,080
Speaker 2: opinion in this case. We don't know, but if you

117
00:07:06,160 --> 00:07:09,120
Speaker 2: look at other opinions from that sitting where that case

118
00:07:09,240 --> 00:07:12,000
Speaker 2: was argued, he is the only justice who has not

119
00:07:12,120 --> 00:07:15,280
Speaker 2: yet written an opinion from that sitting. Now, that doesn't

120
00:07:15,320 --> 00:07:18,040
Speaker 2: mean he'll write the opinion, but it means he may

121
00:07:18,280 --> 00:07:20,360
Speaker 2: have a good chance of writing it, so that'll be

122
00:07:20,400 --> 00:07:23,440
Speaker 2: something interesting to watch, and that decision will certainly have

123
00:07:23,480 --> 00:07:26,360
Speaker 2: an impact in the upcoming twenty twenty six midterms. It

124
00:07:26,400 --> 00:07:29,640
Speaker 2: will certainly whatever the Court decides have an impact on

125
00:07:29,680 --> 00:07:33,280
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty eight presidential election and for many elections

126
00:07:33,320 --> 00:07:37,520
Speaker 2: moving forward after that as well. The other cases are

127
00:07:37,640 --> 00:07:38,640
Speaker 2: very quickly.

128
00:07:38,320 --> 00:07:44,000
Speaker 1: Mentioned before you move on the fact that Justice Alito

129
00:07:44,080 --> 00:07:45,840
Speaker 1: will be writing the opinion.

130
00:07:47,480 --> 00:07:48,680
Speaker 2: Does that suggest.

131
00:07:48,320 --> 00:07:53,360
Speaker 1: That that bodes well for election integrity, at least from

132
00:07:53,360 --> 00:07:55,560
Speaker 1: a conservative perspective, Well, I.

133
00:07:55,560 --> 00:07:58,280
Speaker 2: Would certainly think so. And the issue in this case, Carl,

134
00:07:58,320 --> 00:08:01,880
Speaker 2: there's been a conflict the way courts have interpreted Section

135
00:08:01,920 --> 00:08:04,080
Speaker 2: two of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection

136
00:08:04,200 --> 00:08:06,840
Speaker 2: Clause for many, many years. On the one hand, you

137
00:08:06,920 --> 00:08:11,000
Speaker 2: have the Equal Protection Clause, which correctly says and has

138
00:08:11,040 --> 00:08:14,400
Speaker 2: been interpreted now to say that you can't consider race,

139
00:08:14,440 --> 00:08:18,400
Speaker 2: the government can't consider race when providing benefits or burdens

140
00:08:18,440 --> 00:08:20,760
Speaker 2: to citizens, and that it should be done on a

141
00:08:20,840 --> 00:08:25,280
Speaker 2: race neutral manner. And you have that where the Court

142
00:08:25,320 --> 00:08:29,200
Speaker 2: has clearly articulated that principle. And yet on the other hand,

143
00:08:29,280 --> 00:08:31,800
Speaker 2: you have courts that have interpreted Section two of the

144
00:08:31,880 --> 00:08:35,640
Speaker 2: Voting Rights Act to explicitly require states to take race

145
00:08:35,640 --> 00:08:40,200
Speaker 2: into account when drawing congressional and other legislative districts. And

146
00:08:40,280 --> 00:08:43,320
Speaker 2: so think about that. You have the Constitution saying race

147
00:08:43,320 --> 00:08:45,679
Speaker 2: shouldn't play a role, and yet you have courts that

148
00:08:45,720 --> 00:08:50,120
Speaker 2: have interpreted this statue saying that legislatures must consider race

149
00:08:50,440 --> 00:08:54,240
Speaker 2: in these fundamental decisions that deal with self governments. And

150
00:08:54,280 --> 00:08:56,760
Speaker 2: so I think Justice Alito has been very clear in

151
00:08:56,800 --> 00:09:00,560
Speaker 2: his view that we have a race blind constitution. The

152
00:09:00,600 --> 00:09:03,960
Speaker 2: government should not treat people differently based on their race.

153
00:09:04,320 --> 00:09:06,400
Speaker 2: And so if he does have the opinion, I think

154
00:09:06,440 --> 00:09:09,680
Speaker 2: that vodes very well for adhering to that very important

155
00:09:09,720 --> 00:09:14,200
Speaker 2: idea that there is no such thing as good discrimination

156
00:09:14,679 --> 00:09:18,080
Speaker 2: and that everyone should be treated equally regardless of their

157
00:09:18,120 --> 00:09:18,720
Speaker 2: skin color.

158
00:09:19,559 --> 00:09:22,520
Speaker 1: Okay, and man, you said there are some more cases

159
00:09:22,520 --> 00:09:24,720
Speaker 1: that we should be aware of better upcoming.

160
00:09:24,760 --> 00:09:25,280
Speaker 2: What are those?

161
00:09:25,600 --> 00:09:25,800
Speaker 1: Yeah?

162
00:09:25,840 --> 00:09:28,840
Speaker 2: The two all quickly flag involve a President Trump's ability

163
00:09:28,880 --> 00:09:33,080
Speaker 2: to fire executive branch officials. There's the one involving Rebecca

164
00:09:33,120 --> 00:09:36,920
Speaker 2: Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC, which deals

165
00:09:36,960 --> 00:09:41,199
Speaker 2: with antitrust consumer protection issues, is supposedly an independent agency.

166
00:09:41,600 --> 00:09:43,920
Speaker 2: But what President Trump has said is that the FTC

167
00:09:44,120 --> 00:09:48,800
Speaker 2: its commissioners are essentially exercising executive authorities. So this idea

168
00:09:49,160 --> 00:09:52,560
Speaker 2: that there can be commissioners that he can't hire, that

169
00:09:52,600 --> 00:09:55,400
Speaker 2: he can't fire, he says that flies in the face

170
00:09:55,480 --> 00:09:58,800
Speaker 2: of the Constitution, his article to authority, and it also

171
00:09:58,960 --> 00:10:01,760
Speaker 2: flies in the face of s and statutory provisions as well.

172
00:10:02,040 --> 00:10:06,040
Speaker 2: He's also making a similar argument when it comes to

173
00:10:06,080 --> 00:10:09,320
Speaker 2: the Cook case, trying to remove a member of the

174
00:10:09,320 --> 00:10:12,720
Speaker 2: Federal Reserve Board of Governors. In that case, you may remember,

175
00:10:12,760 --> 00:10:16,040
Speaker 2: he said that Lisa Cooks lied on mortgage applications, essentially

176
00:10:16,240 --> 00:10:19,160
Speaker 2: committed false information, and so as a result, he is

177
00:10:19,200 --> 00:10:23,000
Speaker 2: trying to remove her from the Federal Reserve Board of Governments. Now,

178
00:10:23,200 --> 00:10:26,920
Speaker 2: the arguments in that Federal Reserve case are similar but

179
00:10:27,040 --> 00:10:30,960
Speaker 2: somewhat unique compared to the FTC case. The Federal Reserve

180
00:10:31,080 --> 00:10:34,160
Speaker 2: is a very unique entity with the unique structure, and

181
00:10:34,240 --> 00:10:38,720
Speaker 2: the President has primarily relied on statutory rather than constitutional

182
00:10:38,840 --> 00:10:42,360
Speaker 2: arguments in that Cook case. But look, fundamentally, the question

183
00:10:42,480 --> 00:10:45,640
Speaker 2: in these cases, Carl is does the president have the

184
00:10:45,720 --> 00:10:49,360
Speaker 2: authority under Article two of the Constitution to control the

185
00:10:49,440 --> 00:10:52,280
Speaker 2: executive branch of government? And I think the answer should

186
00:10:52,320 --> 00:10:55,760
Speaker 2: be clearly yes, but we'll have to wait and see

187
00:10:55,880 --> 00:10:57,120
Speaker 2: what the justice is decided.

188
00:10:57,400 --> 00:11:01,240
Speaker 1: I do want to tell you guys my pillow real quickly.

189
00:11:01,559 --> 00:11:03,760
Speaker 1: Michaelendale and to my Pillow employees, want to thank all

190
00:11:03,840 --> 00:11:06,240
Speaker 1: of you for your great support this past year. They're

191
00:11:06,280 --> 00:11:09,120
Speaker 1: looking to make twenty twenty six the best year yet.

192
00:11:09,800 --> 00:11:11,959
Speaker 1: As a thank you to my listeners, my Pillow is

193
00:11:12,000 --> 00:11:16,120
Speaker 1: exclusively offering free shipping on your entire order. Wow, and

194
00:11:16,280 --> 00:11:18,920
Speaker 1: at wholesale pricing. That means they are bringing back the

195
00:11:19,040 --> 00:11:21,559
Speaker 1: mega sale exclusively for my listeners.

196
00:11:21,640 --> 00:11:22,360
Speaker 2: That's pretty cool.

197
00:11:22,760 --> 00:11:26,040
Speaker 1: For example, the classic my Pillows regularly forty nine ninety

198
00:11:26,080 --> 00:11:29,400
Speaker 1: eight and now are marked down to fourteen ninety eight.

199
00:11:29,679 --> 00:11:29,959
Speaker 2: Wow.

200
00:11:31,080 --> 00:11:33,839
Speaker 1: Any turn any mattress into the best mattress ever with

201
00:11:33,960 --> 00:11:37,080
Speaker 1: the Maid in the USA, My Pillow my Mattress topper

202
00:11:37,240 --> 00:11:39,600
Speaker 1: and save up to one hundred dollars. Get a set

203
00:11:39,640 --> 00:11:42,000
Speaker 1: of my Pillow Giza Dream Sheets for as low as

204
00:11:42,080 --> 00:11:44,520
Speaker 1: twenty nine to ninety eight or the six pack Towle

205
00:11:44,600 --> 00:11:46,839
Speaker 1: set for thirty four to ninety eight. To get the

206
00:11:46,880 --> 00:11:49,559
Speaker 1: best specials ever, go to my pillow dot com use

207
00:11:49,600 --> 00:11:52,760
Speaker 1: the promo code Carl that is Curl, or call them

208
00:11:52,880 --> 00:11:55,400
Speaker 1: at eight hundred eighty five eight zero two sixty three.

209
00:11:55,800 --> 00:11:58,160
Speaker 1: These offers won't last long, so please call one eight

210
00:11:58,280 --> 00:12:01,280
Speaker 1: hundred eight five eight zero two six three today. Go

211
00:12:01,400 --> 00:12:04,480
Speaker 1: to my pillow dot com use the promo code. Use

212
00:12:04,520 --> 00:12:13,360
Speaker 1: the promo code Carl. All right, welcome back to the

213
00:12:13,440 --> 00:12:16,040
Speaker 1: Carl Jackson Show again. This is your daily dose of freedom.

214
00:12:16,400 --> 00:12:18,959
Speaker 1: I'm joined by my guest, Zack Smith or the Heritage

215
00:12:19,000 --> 00:12:23,000
Speaker 1: Foundation senior legal fellow there always does great work there

216
00:12:23,400 --> 00:12:26,040
Speaker 1: if you want to know anything about the courts. This

217
00:12:26,200 --> 00:12:27,760
Speaker 1: is one of the guys that I love listening to,

218
00:12:27,840 --> 00:12:30,199
Speaker 1: one of the guys that I love reading. And then

219
00:12:30,640 --> 00:12:33,320
Speaker 1: I come back and pretend like I'm making the arguments

220
00:12:33,400 --> 00:12:36,760
Speaker 1: myself so that I sound so much smarter than I

221
00:12:36,920 --> 00:12:39,840
Speaker 1: actually am on all of these issues. But I learned

222
00:12:39,840 --> 00:12:41,440
Speaker 1: a lot from this guy, so I really love having

223
00:12:41,520 --> 00:12:46,199
Speaker 1: them on. All right, So here's here's a deal birthright citizenship.

224
00:12:46,800 --> 00:12:49,400
Speaker 1: Obviously this is a huge case. Now I didn't hear.

225
00:12:49,840 --> 00:12:52,439
Speaker 1: I didn't have the time to listen to the the

226
00:12:53,000 --> 00:12:58,959
Speaker 1: all of the arguments yesterday from from Trump's guy. I forget,

227
00:12:59,040 --> 00:13:03,199
Speaker 1: I forget it's exact title, but sour I recall this

228
00:13:03,360 --> 00:13:08,960
Speaker 1: his last name, and give me do me this favorite.

229
00:13:09,080 --> 00:13:11,040
Speaker 2: Just give me your over.

230
00:13:11,240 --> 00:13:16,840
Speaker 1: All sense of how well, perhaps or how bad yesterday

231
00:13:17,240 --> 00:13:20,880
Speaker 1: was for the conservative movement. I'm of the opinion that

232
00:13:21,040 --> 00:13:26,480
Speaker 1: birthright citizenship, that magnet to immigration, will destroy America if

233
00:13:26,520 --> 00:13:28,480
Speaker 1: it isn't curtailed in some way.

234
00:13:29,400 --> 00:13:32,040
Speaker 2: Well, look, it was certainly a historic day, Carl. Not

235
00:13:32,160 --> 00:13:35,080
Speaker 2: only were the arguments very important, not only are they

236
00:13:35,120 --> 00:13:37,960
Speaker 2: going to have far reaching applications, but also the first

237
00:13:38,000 --> 00:13:40,640
Speaker 2: time to my knowledge that is sitting as president actually

238
00:13:40,640 --> 00:13:43,640
Speaker 2: attended or arguments. You had President Trump sitting in the

239
00:13:43,679 --> 00:13:46,640
Speaker 2: front row listening to John Sower, who is the Solicitor

240
00:13:46,760 --> 00:13:49,520
Speaker 2: General of the government's chief lawyer that argues cases before

241
00:13:49,559 --> 00:13:52,800
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, making his case. And I would actually

242
00:13:52,840 --> 00:13:55,199
Speaker 2: push back a little bit, Carl. Even though some of

243
00:13:55,280 --> 00:13:58,480
Speaker 2: the justices were hostile to John Sower's position, to the

244
00:13:58,559 --> 00:14:02,760
Speaker 2: government's position, he faced very difficult questions. I actually thought overall,

245
00:14:02,760 --> 00:14:06,719
Speaker 2: he did a pretty decent job articulating his arguments. And

246
00:14:06,800 --> 00:14:10,200
Speaker 2: that's particularly true if you read the briefing in the case.

247
00:14:10,280 --> 00:14:14,320
Speaker 2: I think everyone recognizes that he was probably walking into

248
00:14:14,400 --> 00:14:18,360
Speaker 2: a relatively hostile environment where many of the justices were

249
00:14:18,400 --> 00:14:21,960
Speaker 2: not going to be sympathetic to what he had to say.

250
00:14:22,080 --> 00:14:25,640
Speaker 2: I think we heard that oral argument yesterday, particularly with

251
00:14:25,720 --> 00:14:28,600
Speaker 2: some of the questions from the Chief Justice, particularly with

252
00:14:28,680 --> 00:14:31,760
Speaker 2: some of the questions even from Justice new Horsach, certainly

253
00:14:31,880 --> 00:14:34,680
Speaker 2: from Justice Kagan, Justice Son of my Er, Justice Caktanji

254
00:14:34,720 --> 00:14:37,760
Speaker 2: Brow Jackson. And yet he did a very good job

255
00:14:38,560 --> 00:14:42,760
Speaker 2: articulating what the government's position is, exactly what the President's

256
00:14:42,760 --> 00:14:46,200
Speaker 2: executive order does and does not do, and what the

257
00:14:46,440 --> 00:14:52,600
Speaker 2: constitutional and historical basis for those actions are. So the arguments, Carl,

258
00:14:52,760 --> 00:14:55,680
Speaker 2: all revolve around what does the fourteenth Amendment mean? Right,

259
00:14:56,200 --> 00:14:58,560
Speaker 2: And if you talk to someone, they will say that

260
00:14:58,640 --> 00:15:02,280
Speaker 2: the fourteenth Amendment guaranteed birthright citizenship. It says that everyone

261
00:15:02,400 --> 00:15:05,360
Speaker 2: born in the United States is automatically a citizen. Well

262
00:15:05,680 --> 00:15:08,280
Speaker 2: that's not true, at least that's what the government is saying.

263
00:15:08,560 --> 00:15:11,240
Speaker 2: And that's not true the government says because if you

264
00:15:11,480 --> 00:15:15,160
Speaker 2: read the fourteenth Amendment, it actually says anyone born in

265
00:15:15,240 --> 00:15:19,760
Speaker 2: the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, shall

266
00:15:19,880 --> 00:15:22,480
Speaker 2: be a citizen. And it's that and subject to the

267
00:15:22,560 --> 00:15:26,240
Speaker 2: jurisdiction thereof, language that so often gets left out, that

268
00:15:26,440 --> 00:15:30,560
Speaker 2: is crucially important, and what John Sower explained at the

269
00:15:30,680 --> 00:15:33,520
Speaker 2: oral arguments yesterday is that if you go back to

270
00:15:33,640 --> 00:15:36,560
Speaker 2: the late eighteen sixties eighteen sixty eight, when the fourteenth

271
00:15:36,560 --> 00:15:39,480
Speaker 2: Amendment was adopted, if you look at how that phrase

272
00:15:39,640 --> 00:15:43,400
Speaker 2: was understood, how those who adopted the fourteenth Amendment, those

273
00:15:43,440 --> 00:15:46,200
Speaker 2: who ratified the fourteenth Amendment would have understood it. It

274
00:15:46,360 --> 00:15:50,000
Speaker 2: essentially means that anyone who owes allegiance to the United

275
00:15:50,000 --> 00:15:54,120
Speaker 2: States and has a child in the United States, who

276
00:15:54,160 --> 00:15:57,080
Speaker 2: would then be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,

277
00:15:57,080 --> 00:15:59,880
Speaker 2: who would owe loyalty to the United States, that those

278
00:16:00,000 --> 00:16:03,720
Speaker 2: those children would be citizens. But if someone here was

279
00:16:03,760 --> 00:16:07,240
Speaker 2: here illegally, if they were here temporarily, maybe a visitor,

280
00:16:07,800 --> 00:16:10,640
Speaker 2: maybe on a short term stay, if they still owe

281
00:16:10,680 --> 00:16:14,880
Speaker 2: their allegiance to their home country or another country, then

282
00:16:15,200 --> 00:16:19,560
Speaker 2: their children would not automatically be citizens under the fourteenth

283
00:16:19,600 --> 00:16:21,440
Speaker 2: and Midnight. So that's what a lot of that back

284
00:16:21,440 --> 00:16:24,880
Speaker 2: and forth focused on yesterday. Both sides faced tough questions,

285
00:16:25,400 --> 00:16:27,720
Speaker 2: but it was certainly a historic day at the core.

286
00:16:28,120 --> 00:16:30,520
Speaker 1: Okay, so I want to play a clip for you, Gabe,

287
00:16:30,560 --> 00:16:33,240
Speaker 1: if you can get cut number twenty seven ready, and

288
00:16:33,280 --> 00:16:35,120
Speaker 1: then let me know how much time we have remaining,

289
00:16:35,200 --> 00:16:38,240
Speaker 1: because I've got several questions that I'd like to ask

290
00:16:38,480 --> 00:16:41,120
Speaker 1: Zack Smith of the Heritage Foundation rapid fire, and again

291
00:16:41,440 --> 00:16:44,080
Speaker 1: you can find them on x at tz Smith at

292
00:16:44,200 --> 00:16:47,400
Speaker 1: tz Smith check out his writings at Daily Signal dot com,

293
00:16:47,480 --> 00:16:50,960
Speaker 1: Heritage dot org. Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

294
00:16:51,520 --> 00:16:53,720
Speaker 1: But if you could get cut at number twenty seven,

295
00:16:53,960 --> 00:16:59,160
Speaker 1: I'd like for I'd like for Zach to respond to

296
00:17:00,040 --> 00:17:05,800
Speaker 1: Katadri Brown Jackson, Justice Kataji Brown Jackson. Anyway, Wow, cut

297
00:17:05,920 --> 00:17:07,120
Speaker 1: number twenty seven, please gate.

298
00:17:07,640 --> 00:17:11,160
Speaker 3: I was thinking about this and I think they see

299
00:17:11,600 --> 00:17:14,320
Speaker 3: there are various sources that say this that you can have.

300
00:17:14,960 --> 00:17:19,320
Speaker 3: You obviously have permanent allegiance based on being born in

301
00:17:19,400 --> 00:17:23,320
Speaker 3: whatever country you're from. That's what everybody recognizes. But you

302
00:17:23,560 --> 00:17:27,240
Speaker 3: also have local allegiance when you are on the soil

303
00:17:27,960 --> 00:17:31,480
Speaker 3: of this other sovereign. And I was thinking, you know,

304
00:17:31,600 --> 00:17:35,520
Speaker 3: I'm I a US citizen and visiting Japan, and what

305
00:17:35,680 --> 00:17:38,760
Speaker 3: it means is that, you know, if I steal someone's

306
00:17:38,800 --> 00:17:45,240
Speaker 3: wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and

307
00:17:45,600 --> 00:17:51,159
Speaker 3: prosecute me. It's allegiance, meaning can they control you as

308
00:17:51,240 --> 00:17:53,760
Speaker 3: a matter of law. I can also rely on them

309
00:17:53,800 --> 00:17:58,000
Speaker 3: if my wallet is stolen to you know, under Japanese law,

310
00:17:58,080 --> 00:18:01,359
Speaker 3: go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So

311
00:18:01,440 --> 00:18:05,600
Speaker 3: there's this relationship based on even though I'm a temporary traveler,

312
00:18:05,920 --> 00:18:10,840
Speaker 3: I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally owing

313
00:18:11,600 --> 00:18:13,160
Speaker 3: allegiance in that set.

314
00:18:13,200 --> 00:18:17,760
Speaker 1: Okay, that is wild to me. I gotta tell you, Zach,

315
00:18:18,119 --> 00:18:21,119
Speaker 1: I just real quick, a few questions, but starting with

316
00:18:21,200 --> 00:18:24,080
Speaker 1: this one, we're in response to Justice Katandi Brown Jackson.

317
00:18:25,040 --> 00:18:28,800
Speaker 1: I don't know how theft a robbery constitutes your allegiance

318
00:18:28,880 --> 00:18:32,080
Speaker 1: to another nation when you go visit. Can you can

319
00:18:32,119 --> 00:18:33,040
Speaker 1: you help me understand that.

320
00:18:33,680 --> 00:18:35,600
Speaker 2: I think she's trying to be too clever by half

321
00:18:35,680 --> 00:18:38,440
Speaker 2: carl because essentially what she's saying, and others have made

322
00:18:38,480 --> 00:18:41,720
Speaker 2: this argument as well. I don't think she articulated the

323
00:18:41,880 --> 00:18:45,879
Speaker 2: argument particularly well during that colloquy with the Council for

324
00:18:46,000 --> 00:18:49,200
Speaker 2: the Challengers in this case. But essentially the argument is,

325
00:18:49,440 --> 00:18:51,879
Speaker 2: if you use kind of the common sense understanding of

326
00:18:51,960 --> 00:18:54,560
Speaker 2: what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction of someone,

327
00:18:54,960 --> 00:18:57,280
Speaker 2: She's saying that, for instance, anyone who comes into the

328
00:18:57,400 --> 00:18:59,960
Speaker 2: United States has to obey the laws of the United States,

329
00:19:00,280 --> 00:19:02,600
Speaker 2: they can't break the law with impunity, and if they do,

330
00:19:02,760 --> 00:19:06,240
Speaker 2: the United States can certainly punish them, unless again, you're

331
00:19:06,240 --> 00:19:09,120
Speaker 2: in a very narrow class of ambassadors or some other

332
00:19:09,320 --> 00:19:13,200
Speaker 2: individuals who may enjoy something like diplomatic immunity. Now, I

333
00:19:13,280 --> 00:19:16,040
Speaker 2: think what the government has done, what Solicitor General John

334
00:19:16,119 --> 00:19:18,760
Speaker 2: Sauer has done, is to show why that kind of

335
00:19:19,280 --> 00:19:24,680
Speaker 2: colloquial meaning of jurisdiction isn't really what was intended by

336
00:19:24,760 --> 00:19:27,080
Speaker 2: the framers of the fourteenth Amendment. It's not how that

337
00:19:27,520 --> 00:19:32,120
Speaker 2: language would have been understood by either those who drafted

338
00:19:32,240 --> 00:19:35,159
Speaker 2: or ratified the amendment or the general public at the

339
00:19:35,240 --> 00:19:36,840
Speaker 2: time it was passed and ratified.

340
00:19:37,520 --> 00:19:40,159
Speaker 1: Okay, so less than a minute here two concerns that

341
00:19:40,240 --> 00:19:44,280
Speaker 1: I have birth tourism, and you even Hadil Justice Neil

342
00:19:44,320 --> 00:19:48,400
Speaker 1: Gorsich kind of pressing the issue on the domicile status,

343
00:19:48,440 --> 00:19:51,439
Speaker 1: which made me a little nervous. Your take real quickly

344
00:19:51,520 --> 00:19:52,040
Speaker 1: on both.

345
00:19:52,119 --> 00:19:55,240
Speaker 2: So two very quick points. Yes, birth tourism is a

346
00:19:55,320 --> 00:19:58,320
Speaker 2: very real issue. I think Solicitor General Souer pointed that out.

347
00:19:58,440 --> 00:20:01,480
Speaker 2: You have many Chinese now in particular, who are coming

348
00:20:01,560 --> 00:20:04,520
Speaker 2: into the United States on a short term basis having children,

349
00:20:04,720 --> 00:20:07,720
Speaker 2: and then immediately returning back to their home country. He

350
00:20:07,840 --> 00:20:11,800
Speaker 2: made clear that would have been unfathomable to the individuals

351
00:20:11,880 --> 00:20:14,600
Speaker 2: who passed and ratified the fourteenth Amendment. And just as

352
00:20:14,840 --> 00:20:18,400
Speaker 2: Samuel Alito I think made clear and Solicen General John

353
00:20:18,440 --> 00:20:22,000
Speaker 2: Sower did as well, that if you have absurd results

354
00:20:22,800 --> 00:20:25,840
Speaker 2: resulting from an interpretation of a statute or a law

355
00:20:26,280 --> 00:20:30,480
Speaker 2: that tends to suggest that that interpretation may be incorrect

356
00:20:30,520 --> 00:20:32,960
Speaker 2: or should at least be reevaluated. And I think that's

357
00:20:33,000 --> 00:20:35,480
Speaker 2: the point they're making here, because I don't think anyone

358
00:20:35,560 --> 00:20:38,080
Speaker 2: thinks that type of birth tourism as a policy matter

359
00:20:38,200 --> 00:20:40,280
Speaker 2: is okay. And so if we're saying that is re

360
00:20:41,359 --> 00:20:44,479
Speaker 2: required by the Constitution, that should give us a very

361
00:20:44,600 --> 00:20:47,560
Speaker 2: real pause. And in term of the domicile issue that

362
00:20:47,760 --> 00:20:50,240
Speaker 2: came up because of a prior interpretation of an eighteen

363
00:20:50,320 --> 00:20:53,360
Speaker 2: ninety eight case called Wong Kim arc, both sides say

364
00:20:53,480 --> 00:20:56,240
Speaker 2: that case, which dealt with the child of Chinese immigrants

365
00:20:56,600 --> 00:21:00,520
Speaker 2: who the Supreme Court said was a citizen, how exactly

366
00:21:00,640 --> 00:21:03,680
Speaker 2: that decision should be interpreted, how it should be implied.

367
00:21:04,200 --> 00:21:07,200
Speaker 2: And what John Sower said is that if you go

368
00:21:07,440 --> 00:21:10,520
Speaker 2: back and read that long term art decision, which found

369
00:21:10,600 --> 00:21:14,440
Speaker 2: that individual to be a US citizen is that essentially

370
00:21:14,600 --> 00:21:17,840
Speaker 2: it lines up with the President's policies because what the

371
00:21:17,920 --> 00:21:20,879
Speaker 2: court said in that case, if someone was domiciled in

372
00:21:20,920 --> 00:21:23,040
Speaker 2: the US, if they were here and they had an

373
00:21:23,080 --> 00:21:26,600
Speaker 2: intent to stay, to make the US their permanent home. Essentially,

374
00:21:26,640 --> 00:21:28,440
Speaker 2: if they were what we would think of today as

375
00:21:28,480 --> 00:21:32,000
Speaker 2: either a citizen or a long term permanent resident, then yes,

376
00:21:32,240 --> 00:21:35,639
Speaker 2: their child would be a US citizen. But if you

377
00:21:35,720 --> 00:21:38,400
Speaker 2: are here again on a short term basis, if you're

378
00:21:38,440 --> 00:21:41,960
Speaker 2: here illegally, then no, your child would not be considered

379
00:21:42,200 --> 00:21:46,159
Speaker 2: a US citizen because you don't owe allegiance to the

380
00:21:46,359 --> 00:21:49,720
Speaker 2: United States. And what President Trump's policy has done is

381
00:21:49,840 --> 00:21:52,919
Speaker 2: essentially that it's said that if you're a citizen, if

382
00:21:52,960 --> 00:21:55,879
Speaker 2: you're here on a long term basis, if you intend

383
00:21:56,000 --> 00:21:58,600
Speaker 2: to make the US your home, then your child will

384
00:21:58,680 --> 00:22:02,080
Speaker 2: be a US citizen. But it's not, then no, you

385
00:22:02,200 --> 00:22:05,679
Speaker 2: don't get to enjoy the benefits of perth right citizenship.

386
00:22:07,640 --> 00:22:12,520
Speaker 1: Very very important case, and obviously I'm thankful that the

387
00:22:12,560 --> 00:22:15,919
Speaker 1: Trump administration is willing to take this on. I realize

388
00:22:16,600 --> 00:22:19,159
Speaker 1: the fact that this is an executive order. And by

389
00:22:19,200 --> 00:22:21,480
Speaker 1: the way, thank you for tuning in live well, we'll

390
00:22:21,800 --> 00:22:23,720
Speaker 1: we'll have to slice and dice this a little later

391
00:22:23,880 --> 00:22:30,040
Speaker 1: for SNC here. But I give President Trump props for

392
00:22:30,359 --> 00:22:34,040
Speaker 1: taking this on executive order. I kind of think that's

393
00:22:34,080 --> 00:22:36,680
Speaker 1: probably an uphill battle. But at the same token, I

394
00:22:36,720 --> 00:22:38,560
Speaker 1: think this is a case that needs to be heard,

395
00:22:38,840 --> 00:22:41,240
Speaker 1: and hopefully it'll light a fire under Congress as well,

396
00:22:41,440 --> 00:22:46,400
Speaker 1: because I think birthright citizenship will destroy America, especially since

397
00:22:46,440 --> 00:22:50,359
Speaker 1: the left has gone so that crazy, it's insane. Anyway,

398
00:22:50,920 --> 00:22:54,760
Speaker 1: Zack Smith of the Heritage Foundation, as usual, thank you

399
00:22:54,880 --> 00:22:57,240
Speaker 1: for your time, Thank you for your knowledge. We really

400
00:22:57,280 --> 00:22:57,800
Speaker 1: appreciate you.

401
00:22:57,880 --> 00:23:01,200
Speaker 2: Man. Of course, thanks for having me on, Karl, see you, yes, sir,

402
00:23:01,320 --> 00:23:02,000
Speaker 2: all right, thank you