Revolutionary America Documentary Helps Americans Understand Our Great Inheritance
Don’t miss the chance to reconnect with the essence of America’s legacy. Watch this documentary today.The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Barbara struck down President Trump’s executive order denying automatic citizenship to children born to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States.
Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority found a constitutional violation where none exists.
The court has ruled. Now Congress must answer.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s separate opinion points to the path forward. He agreed that the executive order conflicts with the law’s current language, but he rejected the majority’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
“Congress could — consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment — amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Congress now has both the authority and the responsibility to act.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ exhaustive dissent recovered the original public meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That phrase required more than physical presence. It contemplated complete political allegiance and permanent domicile.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the debates surrounding the 14th Amendment distinguished permanent members of the American political community from temporary visitors and people who remained subject to foreign powers.
Justice Samuel Alito also warned of the consequences of the majority’s interpretation. Automatic citizenship for the children of illegal entrants and birth tourists creates opportunities for foreign exploitation and weakens the nation’s control over membership in its political community.
This was not a close call.
The majority conflated temporary subjection to American law with the solemn allegiance, duties, and privileges of citizenship in a constitutional republic.
The American Revolution rejected the relationship between monarch and subject. The United States instead recognizes sovereign citizens with God-given rights who consent to government through a shared political compact.
By erasing the distinction between a person temporarily subject to American law and a citizen belonging permanently to the American political community, the court cheapened citizenship and created a serious vulnerability.
The judiciary has failed. Congress must now correct that failure.
Unfortunately, the current Republican Congress has squandered much of the mandate voters delivered. Election-integrity legislation remains unfinished, while promised efforts to restrain activist courts and restore constitutional government have stalled.
Voters have noticed.
RELATED: The birthright ruling leaves Trump one clear move

The legislative solution follows directly from Kavanaugh’s opinion and the historical record presented by the dissenters.
Congress should pass a Birthright Citizenship Reform Act amending 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a). Citizenship at birth should attach only when at least one parent is a United States citizen or a lawful permanent resident domiciled here.
Congress should also define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude the children of foreign nationals present unlawfully or admitted only temporarily.
The legislation should apply prospectively and include narrow transition provisions. These changes would respect the original limits of the 14th Amendment, close national security gaps, and restore the integrity of American citizenship.
I am running for Congress in Florida’s 19th District because Washington needs representatives willing to turn constitutional principles into legislation.
I qualified for the ballot through citizen participation rather than by writing a check. As a former January 6 defendant who refused a false plea agreement and endured solitary confinement, I understand the cost of standing on principle.
In Congress, I will introduce the Birthright Citizenship Reform Act and fight for its passage. I will also demand action on election integrity and work to restore American sovereignty.
Justice Alito identified the danger. Justice Thomas supplied the historical case. Justice Kavanaugh identified the legislative remedy. All that remains is for Congress to find the courage to enact it.
The court has ruled. Congress must answer.
This is our republic. We have a duty to keep it.
The Declaration of Independence, signed and issued to the public 250 years ago this month, was the banner under which the American Revolution was fought. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." The Declaration, "the sheet anchor of American republicanism," as Lincoln called it, stated the ideals behind the revolution, but played little role either in starting or ending the conflict. The battles of Lexington and Concord, which ignited the war, had been fought more than a year earlier, in April 1775; the war would continue for another five years until it was settled in 1781 by the American victory at Yorktown. Without victory in the war for independence, the Declaration of Independence might have been relegated to a footnote in history.
The post The Indispensable President appeared first on .
Oratory is out of fashion. The word itself sounds archaic to our ears, denoting something people used to practice in antiquity and at long length in 19th-century America. Even the more down-to-earth sounding “rhetoric” is heard to mean “mere” rhetoric — words false or deceptive by definition. Politicians talk about “messaging,” and the more significant politicians have layers of staff for “communications.”
This does not bode well for the forthcoming 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Every politician in America will feel obliged to say something for the occasion. Whoever can — with perhaps some rare exceptions — will deploy a staff member or staff members to draft his remarks.
The American people declared to the world and under God principles constituting not just the foundation and purpose of their political existence, but the only foundation for legitimate government.
The staff members themselves, products of American universities where American history is frowned upon or given the 1619 treatment, will have to do original research to prepare for the task. A significant percentage of them will rely on artificial intelligence. Patriots have reason to wonder whether there is a politician (or comms team) in America today who understands and can articulate for his fellow citizens and the world the meaning of July 4, 1776.
John Quincy Adams took July 4, 1776, with the utmost seriousness. The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution became the north star of his politics over a 60-year career of devotion to his country and its cause.
He understood that man is a political animal because he is endowed by nature with logos (speech, reason) and that in American politics, the statesman’s first task is to understand the logos — the word fitly spoken, the apple of gold — of the Declaration of Independence.
He articulated his understanding of the Declaration and its principles beautifully, often, and at length in formal orations and other speeches and writings from the early to the late years of his remarkable political career. He served for a few years in his late 30s and early 40s, when he was also a United States senator, as the first Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard. Later, in what his biographer Samuel Flagg Bemis called his “second career” of nine outspoken terms in the House of Representatives, he became known as “Old Man Eloquent,” in great part for his faithful championing of the principles of the Declaration. He was an avid, lifelong student of Cicero.
Adams was born into the American Revolution to a mother and father who were revolutionaries. When he was 7 years old, the Battle of Bunker Hill took place (Saturday, June 17, 1775) within earshot of the farm in Braintree, Massachusetts, where he lived with his mother, Abigail, and three siblings.
On the morning of the battle, his mother took him with her and climbed to the top of nearby Penn’s Hill. From there, the two could see fire and smell the smoke from houses burning in Charlestown. John Quincy remembered the moment vividly to the end of his life. His father, John, was 400 miles away in Philadelphia as part of the Massachusetts delegation to the Second Continental Congress. Braintree was in a war zone.
RELATED: America turns 250 with a broken heart

Weeks before, as militia streamed into the area in the wake of the battles of Lexington and Concord, Abigail Adams had collected the family’s pewter dishes and melted them down to make bullets in a large kettle held over the kitchen fire. From time to time, she heard alarms, warning that the Royal Navy was about to land forces along the coast. She had good reason to fear that the British would try to seize rebel leaders and their families.
The best John Adams could do at the time was to write to his wife from Connecticut: “In Case of real Danger ... fly to the Woods with our Children.” July 4, 1776, was still more than a year away, undefined in the uncertain future. But young John Quincy Adams was already learning its lessons.
On July 4, 1785, less than two years after the peace settlement ending the American war for independence, 17-year-old John Quincy, who had served as his father’s private secretary during the peace negotiations, was sailing back to America after six life-forming years in Europe. He wrote in his journal, slightly misquoting James Thompson’s “Rule Britannia,” that July 4 was:
The greatest day in the year, for every true American. The anniversary of our Independence. May heaven preserve it: and may the world still see:
A State where liberty shall still survive
In these late times, this evening of mankind
When Athens, Rome, and Carthage are no more
The world almost in slavish sloth dissolv’d.
The mature John Quincy would come to believe that on that date the American people declared to the world and under God principles constituting not just the foundation and purpose of their political existence, but the only foundation for legitimate government. He held that these principles of reason emerged in the providence of the Christian God through centuries of oppression and superstition and were destined in the providence of God to spread across the earth.
In God’s good time, the feudal monarchies of Europe would be overthrown and replaced by regimes based on the true principles of the American Revolution. The same providential fate awaited all the world’s barbarous, savage, or tyrannical regimes.
These facts, in his mind, were perfectly compatible with the maxim he would make famous, that America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy — and equally compatible with the reality he faced throughout his political career, that America itself, in its freedom, might abandon its principles and descend into barbarous tyranny.
In Fourth of July orations over four decades, Adams would explain to his fellow citizens why and how, in fidelity to the laws of nature and nature’s God, America should, in all weathers, steer its course by the north star of the principles of the Declaration.
These orations and other speeches and writings are conveniently collected in “John Quincy Adams: Speeches and Writings,” recently edited by David Waldstreicher, the distinguished professor of history at the City University of New York Graduate Center, for the Library of America. They are full of history, reasoning, learning, and even oratory that should come in handy for those hoping to say something that rises to the occasion of the coming semiquincentennial.
Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.