BS Summary: This video contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Begging the Question, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 21.5% saturation with 218 hits. Analysis detected 2,268 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,014 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74% and a BS Rank of 82% (3,174 of 16,813 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 81.10% of the video peer group.
to to our other top story.
In just a few hours, President Trump literally,
physically headed to the Supreme Court
where oral arguments will be held over his push to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal migrants and temporary visitors to the US.
You're going to go to the Supreme Court tomorrow?
>> I do believe And just sit there and listen?
Because I have listened to this argument for so long and this is not about Chinese billionaires who are billionaires from other countries who all of a sudden have 75 children or 59 children in one case or 10 children becoming American citizens.
Joining me now, constitutional law attorney Mark Smith.
And Mark, obviously, I want to focus on the law throughout the segment, but we have to talk about this.
What do you make of President Trump being the first president, based upon all of our research, to ever attend an argument at the Supreme Court?
It's a great idea. Look, he is the party and if you're a party, you're totally entitled to go to court and observe the proceedings.
So, I think President Trump should attend today.
He is the party here.
He is the one that created this lawsuit and thank God he did.
It was his executive order that finally got this issue of birthright citizenship before the court because as you know, Todd, the reality was up until now there was nobody had standing to challenge this absurdity of basically anyone that comes to the United States and has a kid, they become an automatic American citizen.
You could not challenge that cuz no one had standing to do so until President Trump wisely did this executive order.
So, he should attend this argument because he's the one that caused it.
Let's drill down into the law.
This case is challenging a long-held interpretation of the 14th Amendment
with section one of the amendment reading, quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and this is the key part right here, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
How should the court ultimately rule on that question? We had it underlined on the screen, jurisdiction thereof.
Well, the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof has a clear historical meaning.
Remember, after the Civil War, the whole goal was to make sure that the slaves and their children were made American citizens.
That was originally done by by congressional statute, Todd, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but there was concern that a statute would not be sufficient to last the rest of the country's history.
So, the decision was made to create the 14th Amendment.
And the reason why that's significant is if you read the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it literally says to be an American citizen, you have to be born in the United States and also not subject to any foreign power.
That language was essentially elevated into the Constitution in the form of the 14th Amendment.
So, today, if you're simply visiting the United States, if you sneak into the country as an illegal alien and have a child, you are still subject to the to a foreign power, meaning your home country.
So, therefore, under the 14th Amendment, you're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof and you haven't met the criteria to be a citizen.
And that's a pretty pretty straightforward argument.
argument. But of course, there's a vested interest on the other side to say that anyone born in the United States is an American citizen.
And the only reason why that interpretation has lasted as long as it has is because as you know, there's been no ability to challenge this in court cuz the only people with standing are people that benefited from this wrong interpretation of the law.
Everyone else had no standing until this executive order by President Trump.
I'm going to push back slightly.
You said it's the other side, Democrats specifically.
And you're 100% right on that, but I would also argue Republicans have not been as enthusiastic, let's say, as you are that this is going to be a win for their side.
The prevailing wisdom, as you well know, is that this court is going to keep birthright citizenship in place.
So, with that as the baseline, what questions do you expect these justices to ask at oral arguments today?
Who are you paying attention to? And ultimately, what does your gut tell you as to how the court will rule when they rule in a few months?
Well, this court is very much an originalist court.
What that means, as you know, Todd, as an attorney yourself, is you look at the text of the relevant law.
This is the 14th Amendment and you look at the surrounding history. Keep in mind, there is already a a group of people that were born in the United States at the time of the 14th Amendment, but were not made citizens because they were subject to a foreign power.
And that was the Native American population. The Native American population was born in the United States in the late 19th century at the time of the 14th Amendment, but they were not American citizens.
Why? Because they were subject to a foreign power in the form of their tribes.
So, there's clear historical evidence here in addition to the text as to the what it means.
And again, because this is an originalist court that focuses on the text and the history at the time a law was enacted, that's where they're going to be focusing on.
What was the understanding of Congress and the people that ratified the 14th Amendment in the year of our Lord 1868?
I am not a Supreme Court justice yet,
but I think your argument really did sell me.
Yeah, but the people that are
Also had a major ruling yesterday. Uh
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.