Tag Archives: Ruth Bader Ginsburg


RBG, doesn’t stand for REDBLUEGREEN, it stands for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Yeah, you read about her breaking a few ribs, this isn’t the first time, but it stands to reason that she is reaching the end of the line. What keeps her going is the progressive expansion of “rights” not implied in the Constitution. Beating cancer twice and recovering is a sign of her resolve, however time takes its toll and her time to retire has come. This will give President Trump the once in a life time opportunity to appoint one more Justice to the Supreme Court – 3 in all.

The 14th Amendment is a RED LINE and we hope that once and for all the Court ceases the opportunity to adjudicate it.

by TED HILTON   The San Diego Union-Tribune

“All persons born and naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” (The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)

Related: Birthright citizenship: Bedrock principle is good for America

President Trump is correct to challenge birthright citizenship. As we commemorate 150 years since the 14th Amendment’s passage in 1868, it is long overdue for our nation to conform to the true intent of the “subject to the jurisdiction clause” which confers United States citizenship.

It is unknown to most Americans that prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, United States Attorneys General Caleb Cushing in 1856, and Jeremiah Black in 1859, both wrote that “the doctrine of perpetual allegiance,” or citizenship determined by the soil, is inadmissible in the United States. They concluded, at the time of the Revolution our nation’s founders rejected regal government and feudal law.

Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Jacob Howard, the chief authors of the 14h Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction clause,” stated it grants citizenship for a birth to a parent who is under complete jurisdiction, who owes allegiance to our nation. They stated the clause does not apply to someone who is subject in some degree to the political or civil jurisdiction.

Five years after the amendment’s passage on Dec. 1, 1873, President Ulysses S. Grant proclaimed in his State of the Union address, “The United States… had led the way in the overthrow of the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance.”

President Trump is upholding President Grant’s and the nation’s original understanding that the 14th Amendment ended birthright citizenship.

In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark decision granted citizen births to Chinese parents who, under the Emperor of China, were prohibited from becoming citizens of other countries. The Ark decision concluded, “…the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in the Fourteenth Amendment must be presumed to have been intended by Congress …, to mean the same as the words in the case of The Exchange.” This case precedence confirms inadmissible aliens are not subject to complete jurisdiction.

United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, the principal founder of our constitutional law system, authored The Exchange decision in 1812. Chief Justice Marshall wrote of the distinction between civil and territorial jurisdiction; persons residing with the nation’s “consent” are under civil jurisdiction. Justice Marshall clarified, “But if the property of an alien, be forcibly… carried within the territory, no consent is implied, and consequently there is no ground for jurisdiction.” The case confirms jurisdiction over things and persons is the same.

Wong Kim Ark cited defining precedence from The Exchange, “…the whole civilized world concurred that a foreigner is not understood as intending to subject himself to a jurisdiction absent his document proving the nation’s consent.” The justices understood an alien under territorial jurisdiction, without this document, is subject to “arrest and detention.”

Compliant with that legal precedent, Wong Kim Ark decided, “Chinese persons … are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here …” In the 2012 Congressional Research Service report to Congress, Margaret Mikyung Lee omitted this crucially significant section, imprecisely writing, “The holding does not make a distinction between illegal and legal presence …”

Clearly, the justices conditioned granting citizenship to children whose parents were residing lawfully with permission, signifying doubt this ruling would be granted to aliens without legal presence.

Six Wong Kim Ark justices wrongfully declared the congressional debates that govern the accurate meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction,” were inadmissible. Opposing that misjudgment, Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan, a renowned civil rights activist, dissented from this ruling. They concurred with the government’s case, to grant citizenship to children of parents ineligible to become citizens defies the Constitution’s evident meaning of jurisdiction.

President Trump’s administration can also initiate a court challenge concerning citizen births of “birth tourists” and inadmissible aliens, which can ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is confidence a majority of the justices will comply with the 14th’s original intent, and the conclusive jurisdiction decisions of John Marshall, the most revered Supreme Court Justice in American history.

Congress must follow the relevant words of former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, “A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”

All Wong Kim Ark justices concurred a citizen is born to a parent who is, or is eligible to become, a U.S. citizen. This is how Congress can legislatively define citizenship by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to follow the correct intent of the Fourteenth Amendment’s authors.

When Congress adheres to this intelligent, common-sense intent, the United States of America will at last, no longer practice feudal law and no longer silence the Founding Fathers.

Hilton, a San Diego resident, advocates for entitlement and immigration reforms.

Copyright © 2018, The San Diego Union-Tribune



Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has finally spewed hateful invective from her socialist twisted mind. Freedom loving Americans knew it before hand that she did not interpret the law, but was the law in her own mind, twisted it to suit her own liberal philosophy. Her decisions were examples of a vicious socialist with a Marxist/Lenin bent. There is nothing worse that a twisted liberal thinker sitting on the bench adjudicating hot button issues with a predisposed outcome. Once again she proved here mouth is in reverse proportion to her brain.

From the New York Times: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s well-known candor was on display in her chambers late Monday, when she declined to retreat from her earlier criticism of Donald Trump and even elaborated on it.

He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. …”I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she had said in the Times interview published Monday.
Time for the lady to go, her mind is paralyzed, she is senile, hospice is the only place for her.

But after being roundly criticized for a remarkable series of interviews in which she mocked Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, Justice Ginsburg on Thursday did something highly unusual for a member of the nation’s highest court: She admitted making a mistake. Barry Friedman, a professor of law at New York University who describes himself as a friend of Justice Ginsburg’s, said her comments were a stark example of a breach in the neutrality that justices must adhere to.

“Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office,” she wrote in a brief statement issued by the court, admitting her remarks were “ill advised” and expressing regret. “In the future I will be more circumspect.”

Click here for the NYPOST story. Our take, Ginsburg did more to help Donald Trump than anyone else ever could. In another words she did what Obama did for gun sales, SENT THEM THROUGH THE ROOF.” Great job Ginsburg, pack your bags for New Zealand.