On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, the hate America Attorney General’s in blue states and the hate America press want you to believe that birthright citizenship is in the Constitution. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s not in any of the legislative history for the 14th Amendment It’s not in the 1866 Civil Rights Act. The idea that if you’re born in the U.S., you’re automatically a citizen is a sham. President Trump’s executive order should be effective enough to end birthright citizenship but there will be an activist effort against this saying that the Supreme Court set a precedent. Also, President Trump is remaking the federal bureaucracy right before our eyes. What Trump is doing, across the board, is courageous and more conservative than President H.W. Bush or President W. Bush. The 3 most conservative presidents of the last 100 years are Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, and Trump. Later, the Bernie Sanders Marxist crap has gotten us to where we are today. Look at your paycheck stub – is a billionaire taking your money? No, it’s the government. No company creates inflation – it’s the government. But Sanders’ answer is more government, just get the billionaires.
Epoch Times
Trump’s Reforms Could Radically Overhaul, Consolidate Federal Workforce
Epoch Times
DOJ Directs Prosecutors to Probe Officials Who Obstruct Immigration Enforcement
Epoch Times
Fetterman Votes With Republicans to Advance Hegseth, Says He Won’t Switch to GOP
X
How’d this creep get a top DoD position
NY Post
Trump tells Putin to end Ukraine war now — or else: ‘We can do it the easy way, or the hard way’
Photo by Alexi Rosenfeld
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Rough transcription of Hour 1
Segment 1
Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811. Welcome. They hate America. Attorneys general in blue states. They hate America. Press. Well, they they want you to believe that birthright citizenship is right there in the Constitution. I’ve even heard some of our friends on cable and on radio. So it’s in the Constitution. It should be tough to turn this around. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s not anywhere in the Constitution. It’s not in the history of the 14th Amendment. In fact, quite the contrary. The author, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the first of the Civil Rights Act in American history and after the Civil War, had a lot of influence on the. On the makeup of the 14th Amendment and specifically said it had nothing to do with aliens. We have a Supreme Court decision at the end of the 18th century, which I’ll get into as well. Stick with me. Our problem is going to be activist judges and justices. Unfortunately, now most judges and justices are activists, even the ones in many instances who claim to be originalists, to be reading the text of the Constitution, or they fall back to the position that the country has gotten used to this. And we don’t want to create a radicalization of any policy position and so forth and so on. Why don’t you just read the Constitution and damn it. Just just follow it. You’re a judge. And so this is already prepared to attack. They want to get a temporary restraining order on President Trump’s executive order. Our friend Alan Dershowitz has said an executive order cannot reverse a constitutional amendment. Of course, it’s not in the Constitution, so an executive order should be effective enough to end it. But I tell you again, this won’t be about what the Constitution actually says, though there will be an activist effort. I hope it fails, but it may well succeed to try and pretend that the Supreme Court has created a precedent and try and pretend it’s always been there and then say we’re not going to reverse course. It would be so humane, inhumane, rather. There’s nothing in the Constitution about birthright citizenship. The idea that if you’re just born in the United States, your citizen is a sham and it’s always been a sham. Democrats in the media claim it comes from the 14th Amendment and they’re lying. I’ve talked about that here on Fox on Blaze. How even on Meet the Depressed, the phony moderator. Now the left wing Democrat dressed up as a journalist. In a $12 dress. She only read part of the language in the 14th Amendment. To mislead everybody who was watching Meet the Press, which is why I tell you why. Watch. Meet the Depressed. What was the purpose of the 14th Amendment? Well, what were the purposes of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments? And why do we call them the post-Civil War amendments? They were specifically aimed at the just freed black slaves, no longer slaves. They were amendments passed. To ensure the rights and privileges that every American enjoys would now be enshrined in our Constitution. To protect and promote. Citizenship for black people because we still had states that were resisting. And I, I must remind you that three fourths of the House and Senate excuse me, three fourths of the states are necessary to ratify a constitutional amendment. And that’s what they did. And if some of the Southern states or Confederate states hadn’t voted for it, they would not going to be allowed back into the union. The 1866 Civil Rights Act came before the 14th Amendment. And the 1866 Civil Rights Act was the precursor to the 14th Amendment. Conveying. Equal rights, the right to vote and so forth and so on. On the newly freed black individuals who had been black slaves. The problem was, after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, Andrew Johnson was president and he was a Democrat. He actually supported the Civil War, but he was not big on conferring equal rights on black people. And so Congress which was. You know, made up of a significant majority in the House and Senate. A Republicans who had supported abolition and so forth. They passed the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Johnson resisted it. He wasn’t going to enforce it. And they passed it over his objections. Thus the people who are behind the Civil Rights Act of 1866, they decided we need to amend the Constitution in addition to the 13th and 15th amendments that they had already been developing. Thus came the 14th Amendment. Applying due process and equal protection. Two black people. That already existed in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, but implying applying it to the states through the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment, the relevant clause that we’re talking about here. Was intended to ensure that black people were emancipated in every respect as citizens of the United States and had nothing to do with immigration, legal or illegal. It never came up. In fact, that’s not correct. The one time it came up, it was dismissed as irrelevant. That’s the legislative history. Article one, Section eight, clause four. That’s what we’re talking about. Congress shall power to establish uniform rules of naturalization. Okay. Congress has never passed a federal statute that confers birthright citizenship. Never. It’s not in the Constitution, it’s not in federal law, it’s not in the legislative history. And yet here it is. Why? Because Democrats. Some Republicans, the bureaucracy, they see birthright citizenship as a means to an end. Birthright citizenship is the argument is the position is the policy the Democrat Party holds onto because they want monopoly power for all time. They don’t care if it’s foreigners or not. I don’t care if it’s foreigners or not. And that’s why of the state attorneys general. Bringing the cases that they’re bringing to try and stop it. They’re going to form shop, try and get a district court that’ll help them. District court are looking for a temporary restraining order nationwide from one federal judge. These federal district judges, I think there’s a thousand or 1100 of them. They just need one. Then you go through the appellate process and so forth. And so that’s what they’re going to be doing the entire time. This is going to be a tough one because of the the mindset of the judiciary. And the fact that so many people are affected by this. I mean, what the court could do if it wants to be practical as opposed to constitutional, is say from this point forward, there is no birthright citizenship. That it has been conveyed and conferred on individuals who are already here and they’ve relied on it. That would be better than nothing. As they say, half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. Right. So. But I want to get into what what does the Constitution say if it doesn’t say birthright citizens? What citizenship? What exactly does it say? And we’ll get into that and I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
What does the relevant section of your Constitution, the 14th Amendment, have say about the citizenship? Quote all persons born or naturalized in the United States. And subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. So what is this phrase? And subject to the jurisdiction thereof? Sounds like our courts, our Congress, the media. The ethnic front groups all pretend it doesn’t exist. Are they trying interpreting in a way that makes it useless? All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States in the state wherein they reside. That’s not what it says. It says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Now, when this was originally ratified, they excluded American Indians, that is. Individuals. Who lived in this country. Native Americans who they didn’t consider, quote unquote, citizens of America because they were citizens of a tribe. That’s how they interpreted jurisdiction there. Can you imagine people coming into this country as an example, illegally having children? That their amendment would be so spun, so twisted to apply to that doesn’t apply to that. It was intended to effectively reverse the Dred Scott decision of 1857. That basically held that. Slaves are. Black Americans from African descent would never be eligible for U.S. citizenship because they’re black. This amendment was aimed at fixing that once and for all. But it was never intended to to be a blank. A blank board for anybody who comes into the country, happens to have a kid or purposely has a kid, and all of a sudden, oh, you’re in the jurisdiction of the United States. Now, some of you might think, well, legally they are in the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s not what they meant either. Jurisdiction. Meaning? Allegiance to the United States. Part of the system of the United States. That’s what they meant by jurisdiction. So if you. If you have diplomats who visit the United States and they happen to have children here and nobody claims that they’re automatically American citizens. If you’re a tourist and you come to the United States happen to have a child here, nobody’s claiming they’re automatically American citizens. So why would we say that? If you’re an illegal immigrant who comes to the United States and have a child here, that’s automatically a birthright citizen. Notice birthright citizens. That phrase doesn’t even exist. Was never uttered. Had nothing to do with this amendment. Subject to the. Jurisdiction thereof. The jurisdiction thereof. If you’re here illegally and you have a child, you don’t get to determine. It’s not like I get to unilaterally determine that I’m subject to the jurisdiction of the United States any more than a diplomat does or a tourist does, or somebody on a student visa does or anything of the kind. And they have a child. And so there’s literally nothing that supports this. Nothing. Zero. Now. So the Trump administration has put together an executive order that reads as follows. By the authority vested in me as president by the constitutional laws of the United States, it is hereby ordered Section one purpose the privilege of United States citizenship as a priceless and profound gift. 14th Amendment states all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States. A shameful decision Dred Scott versus Sanford in 1857. Which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently, as I said, excluding people of African descent from eligibility for U.S. citizenship solely based on their race. But the 14th Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. It is always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, quote unquote. So consistent with this understanding that Congress has further specified through legislation that, quote, a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a national a citizen of the United States at birth, generally mirroring the 14th Amendment’s text. Now, among the categories of individuals born in the U.S. are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The privilege of the United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States. One When that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of that person’s birth, that is a child of illegal aliens. Two when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary, such as but not limited to visiting the United States under the auspices of a visa waiver program. This is what I just pointed out, or visiting on a student work or tourist visa. And the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth. The policy section, too. It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency, the United States, issued documents regarding United States citizenship or accept documents issued by state, local or other governments, authorities purporting to recognize U.S. citizenship to persons when that person’s mother was unlawfully present. They go through the same the same routine. Mother means the immediate female biological progenitor. They write father means the immediate male biological progenitor. Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority. And it goes on. So it’s a straightforward executive order. Again, our friend Alan Dershowitz, a great guy. Smart as hell when he says you can’t reverse a in a memo with an executive order. Yes, but you can reverse a non. A non supported practice with an executive order. And that’s what we’re talking about here. It’s not in the Constitution. It never has been. Unless a court or the Supreme Court rewrites the Constitution in the 14th Amendment and includes it in there. And I’m sick and tired of these courts amending our Constitution. We have an amendment process. Two of them, two of them. They’re very difficult, but they exist. And it doesn’t include judges or even a group of justices amending the Constitution. There is no birthright citizenship in our governing document of any kind in our legislative history, of any kind in any statute whatsoever. I’ll be right back.
Segment 3
Now, in order to get where they want to go on this birthright citizenship, they will either read the clause and the jurisdiction thereof out of the Constitution or they will interpret it in a way that makes it meaningless. And in a way that has no historical context or attachment whatsoever. Well, they’re here, so they’re subject to the jurisdiction. Well, they didn’t need to say that then, did they? Did they? And yet that interpretation is not based on anything. Anything. There’s no not solid ground. No ground whatsoever. But what they have going for them is the mindset of how people interpret the Constitution. You know, we had a federal court the other day, actually a few weeks back that said DOCA is unconstitutional. It took him a while. But Barack Obama thought it was unconstitutional. He created, by the way, wave a magic wand and then Congress did. An entire regime for illegal aliens who are born during a certain period of time as youths and they’re no longer youth. And most yet, these cases came into the United States and then conferred on them certain certain rights. Certain rights of citizenship, certain rights to stay in the country. What is were based on? Was there any statutory authority now? Was there any constitutional authority? No, he just did it. They just did it. Court said, You can’t do that. That’s unconstitutional. Has anything changed now? Now they’ll appeal it. Then I’ll go to the Supreme Court. So if you don’t have courts that have fidelity to the rule of law, the Constitution, to basic English language text, how to interpret it, you have lawlessness. So if any court rules that birthright citizenship is or is implied or was intended or now that now that it’s been in practice for all these for all these decades, it’s it’s got to be accepted as some kind of reality, then, you know, that’s lawless, that the courts are lawless. Let me say this. When courts are lawless, we have no more reason to abide by their decision. Then they do by not abiding to the Constitution. You get my point. If they’re not going to adhere to the Constitution, why should we adhere to something even even lesser? That is their damn opinion. If their opinion is not based on the Constitution. Then what do we care what their opinion is? They might as well be some schmuck on cable TV. Who just giving an opinion. It’s the way they tried to misinterpret the 14th Amendment when it came to Donald Trump on the ballot. But it was limited to. The Civil War. People participated in insurrection against the country during the period of the Civil War. Who served in the Confederacy? Again, this was a post-Civil War amendment. Had nothing to do with January 6th. They tried their best. They almost got away with it. I warned people it was coming, but we had certain really good legal analysts saying, Oh, that’s just hysteria. No, it’s reality. This is what they do on the left. So they’re not they’re not just of two minds. They’re of multiple minds beyond two. Number one, they hate the Constitution. They tell us because it was written by a bunch of white supremacist slave owner plantation owners. Of course, it’s idiotic, but they say that, number two, if you don’t interpret the Constitution the way they do, then they say you’re lawless. You don’t support the Constitution. Wait a minute. I thought you hated the Constitution. You get my point. Number three. If you do in fact, cite the Constitution and seek to uphold the Constitution. You called a right winger. Wait a minute. I’m so confused. We, for the Constitution are against it. Are we for interpreting the language or against it? What are we for? You’re for the old communist maxim. The ends justify the means, that’s all. We’ll go through the process. But you got to come up with the answer that we demand. That’s how that works. That’s what they mean. And there there are people in the media are dumber than they are dumber than they are. Really quite repulsive. Here’s Elie Mystal. The national justice correspondent. Marcellus. Listen to this one. Cut sex. Go. The other problem is that even though I do think that clearly it is clearly unconstitutional on the merits, there is no doubt about that. And when does the court get around to it? You know, that’s simply no doubt about that. No doubt that. What Trump’s trying to do is unconstitutional. There’s just no doubt about it. Clearly, on the merits. And what would that be? Go ahead. But who has standing? That means who has the right to sue under some interpretations? It’s not going to be until one of these babies is born in this country and denied their citizenship rights before. We have a perfect plaintiff to even sue that. Now, I think there are better arguments that people have standing right now, but I’m not one of the justices paid for by having crow in the Supreme Court, so to speak. This guy is a punk. He’s always been a punk. Hates the Constitution, in my view. It’s a punk. Saying, well, I’m not one of the justices paid off by this billionaire. This this is how they they talk. But you see, he doesn’t make the case, does he? It doesn’t make the case for this for his position. He can’t make the case for his. But he’s talking about standing. What are you going to do if the wait for one of these people to grow up? The idiot doesn’t even understand standing. A parent could bring a case, supposedly a state that does not want to enforce it can bring a case, supposedly. There are ways to get standing. And so this guy is an idiot, which is exactly why he’s on Marcello’s day. It’s filled with idiots. Go ahead. Getting to the merits of the case, which might give Trump anywhere from ten months to a year to two years to deal with this guy is a historical buffoon. We don’t even care what he thinks. Then we have Rob Bonita, the attorney general of California. I’m sure he’s a Sharpie. This guy, when it comes to the constitution, maybe the Soviet constitution, not the American constitution. Cut five. Go. The president did make a promise on birthright citizenship and revoking it. And I made a promise to and I’m keeping it, that I will see you in court when you break the law and violate the US Constitution. That promise applies here and it applies to down there. Sherlock. So now Trump has broken the Constitution. I could bet these guys $1,000,000. $10 million, $10 dinner. To show us the constitutional language. There is none constitutional history. There is none. But you see, Trump has violated the Constitution. Right. The Constitution, which we’re supposed to hate in the first place, Right. I guess along with the Bill of Rights, I guess, along with the 14th Amendment. But can you imagine civil wars over? There’s destitution all throughout the country, not just the South, but the north as well. They’re trying to grapple with still differences that they have. The decision is made by the body politic. We need these amendments to the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, among other things, to apply. The Fifth Amendment, due process, equal protection, the right to vote equality. Two former black slaves. And the Democrats interpreted that to mean illegal aliens. Illegal aliens. They can’t tell you how they came to be. They can’t tell you where it is in the constitutions. It’s an invisible ink right there with next to the abortion clause. And yet they talk fast and they tell you this is where we are. And we even have conservatives who are saying, you know, yes, yes, it’s in the Constitution. No, it’s not in the Constitution. The problem is going to be activist judges and justices who are not going to want to fix this. That’s going to be the problem. But the fact of the matter is, here’s Donald Trump trying to uphold the Constitution. Here’s the Trump administration interpreting the text and the history and the language of the Constitution of the United States, the 14th Amendment, doing it accurately, doing it correctly. And they’re accused of violating the Constitution by the very people who hate the Constitution to begin with. Yes. Birthright citizenship. And look how the Democrats fight to the last man, the last woman, the last. Trains to last. Whatever. For illegal. Silence for people. Who are born here. Have no right to be here, let alone citizens. Citizens. Crazy, isn’t it? Yeah, it’s crazy. But remember who they are. The Democrats. Ends justify the means. They’re not about the rule of law. They’re not even about these kids. They’re about power. Now that I’ve said it, you’ll hear it all over. All over cable. But they’re about power. And power. For them, power numbers is foreigners coming into the country legal and illegal, but especially illegal. So the illegal aliens who come into the country, the Democrat Party. Works very, very hard to slobber over and provide them with benefits and so forth that when they get citizenship, well, vote Democrat. It’s that simple. It’s not complicated. As the New York Times once said, to reshape the electorate. That’s all the how would the country the party comes first? It’s the way it works. So they’re going to fight to the death on birthright citizenship. The courts are going to try and do. What they can to help the Democrat Party, their Supreme Court. The problem we have with some of the members of the court is some of them are just gutless wonders and as gutless wonders, they will abandon the Constitution as John Roberts did when it came to Obamacare, as John Roberts did when it came to the. The appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to fix what took place in New York. You’ve got him. You’ve got Barrett. These people are not constitutionalists. They’re not originalists. Their wet finger in the winner’s. And they care very much about what the dying Washington Post and the Holocaust denying New York Times have to say. And so it’s a matter of twisting language or pretending language doesn’t exist or ignoring the entire history behind the 14th Amendment and its birth through the 1866 Civil Rights Act. You have to ignore all those things, all of them. To reach conclusion that there is something called birthright citizenship. There’s not. I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
I want you to realize that what President Trump is doing across the board is unprecedented, courageous, and more conservative than anything. George H.W. Bush, George W Bush ever did and ever would do. Whether people want to hear this or not, including President Trump. We now know that the the three most conservative presidents. The three most conservative presidents for 100 years. For a century. Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump. Some of my brothers may oppose tariffs. I’m not a big tariff guy. I don’t think he slapped tariffs on everything. But back in the 1920s, conservatives did. In the 1950s, conservatives did. Yes. They believed in tariffs. I believe in tariffs strongly when it comes to countries like China. In other countries that are enemies or that are that are cheating us blind. There’s no reason to tolerate that. There’s no reason to put up with it. So if there are countries that are ripping us off. That are underselling us because of government subsidies to their businesses. Or because they have tariffs in place? Yeah, we ought to whack them with tariffs. And communist China. Wait, a whack with tariffs. Anyway, they have currency manipulation. Which means it’s much more expensive for us to ship things to China. They have quotas. Preventing us from shipping things to China. They steal our technology. They still 51% of every American business that settles there. So why why wouldn’t we place substantial tariffs on them? The point is, we have to build our own infrastructure, develop our own parallel industries, because we’ve helped build theirs and we rely on them, including for medicines. And certain material that has to change. And that’s what Trump’s trying to do change it. Change it. Trump will be and is. The most conservative president since Reagan and Reagan. The most conservative president since Coolidge. I happen to know, because we’ve talked about it, that Donald Trump’s one of his favorite presidents. Was McKinley. McKinley was a big tariff guy. He was a governor. He was a senator when he was in Congress. He pushed for tariffs when he was a governor, he pushed for tariffs when he was president, he imposed very severe tariffs. And yes, there was there was significant economic growth. But there is also a downside. A one point. The country was in a depression, not due to tariffs. In fact, McKinley and his supporters had argued as a result of tariffs, he got us out of the Depression. But remember those robber barons you were taught about, TV tells us about in the leftist. Tell us about it. Some conservatives, big dish and big dad and big dish. We didn’t have a Federal Reserve. And so where would McKinley go? To get the capital needed to make sure that our economic system wouldn’t collapse. Not as a result of hammer tariffs again, but as a result of what had occurred before him. He went to the so-called robber robber barons. To Morgan. To Rockefeller. To Carnegie. And a few other billionaires who today could easily have been Rockefeller today would be a trillionaire. Just so you know. And they loaned the United States back then. About seven or $8 billion. Which was enormous. And saved our economy. Those robber barons, you know. Today, we just print it. There’s no gold standard. There’s no silver standard. There’s there’s no peanuts standard. There’s no standard at all. So print, print, print, print, print. That’s what they do. That’s what they do. Several of my fellow constitutional conservatives look at Donald Trump upholding the Constitution, trying to get us back to the original meaning in the original text of the Constitution. No Bush has ever done that. None of these RINOs have ever supported that. In fact, they’re going to oppose him. Totally non-constitutional reasons. I’ll be right back.