Despite all our present problems and challenges, aggravated by so many daunting divisions, how awed, thrilled, and grateful our Founding Fathers would be to see just how extraordinarily well our republic has done over the last quarter-millennium. They were not sure if we could even survive as a nation at all, and we have certainly suffered through many terrible trials of economic depression, political and social upheaval, wars, world wars, a Cold War, and even a War Between the States.
Yet, guided by our religious faith, the American Declaration of Independence, and our U.S. Constitution, we have not only survived but thrived more than any country in history, dominating the world today like no nation ever before. We are just four percent of the world’s people, but we have a gigantic impact on the rest of this planet. Economically, though we are but one of not quite 200 nations, we make up about a fourth of the world’s economy. Most U.S. dollars are abroad; in fact, about 30 nations and colonies use it as official currency. The rest of the world hopes our economy does well because we are their top export market.
The notion that the world’s second economic power, China, will soon economically surpass us is absurd. As of 2026, China has about 450 airports. But, with less than one-fourth her population, the U.S. has 19,700. With not quite 42,000 airports on the whole planet, that means almost half are American. The U.S. per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2024 was a little under $67,000; in China, just over $13,000. Even our poorest state, Mississippi, has a higher GDP than the United Kingdom, France, Italy, or Spain. In fact, most Americans are in the top one percent of the world’s income-earners.
Politically, no country has remotely our pull. No major United Nations operation occurs without our leadership. Indeed, we can even successfully defy the U.N., like we did earlier this year with military operations in Venezuela and Iran. Militarily, we are the most powerful nation by far. We spend more money on defense than the total GDP of most of the rest of the world combined. We spend more each year just on our 17 intelligence agencies than every other nation spends on its entire military, except for Russia and China. But add up the defense budgets of Russia and China, and ours is more than double the total – way more. China has two aircraft carriers, but we have 11 – you do the math. Both of theirs are diesel. Ours are all nuclear.
A huge global influence we have is our popular culture which has long been our top dollar export: movies, TV programs, the internet, music, Coca-Cola, blue jeans, fast food, etc. In 1986, the French Marxist, Regis Debray, predicted we would win the Cold War because “There is more power in rock music, videos, blue jeans, fast food, news networks, and TV satellites than in the entire Red Army.” Indeed, in 1998 former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was reduced to being a pitchman for Pizza Hut. Chinese children crave a McDonald’s Monster Burger (a double cheeseburger). When one of my sweet Xiaoyan’s little cousins was asked why he liked it so much, he replied, “It’s delicious!” And who caters many Chinese weddings? KFC. But our ideas remain our greatest influence: freedom, equality, democracy, private property, justice, and altruism. As Lady Margaret Thatcher understood, “Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.” While our West European allies continue to restrict their citizens’ most basic speech rights, Americans still enjoy more free expression than any people in history because, like our Founding Fathers and the brave patriots who won our nation’s liberty, we know that all our rights come from God, and our Constitution guarantees that our government must respect and protect them. As Senator Robert Kennedy noted, we Americans are the descendants of the greatest political revolutionaries in history because, as the British-American Christopher Hitchens observed, the American Revolution is the only one that still inspires.
No other nation has created a society where everyone enjoys so many rights – and equally. By far the safest country in which to be any kind of minority is America where minority rights are guaranteed to equal those of any majority because our Constitution protects the individual rights of all U.S. citizens – equally. Even a homeless man’s vote counts equally to that of a multi-billionaire or a president.
No other nation has as strong a system of courts as America where judges are sworn to uphold every part of the Constitution, no matter how unpopular it may be at the moment. No other land’s Founding Fathers did as much as ours to constitutionally guarantee that everyone accused of a crime would get maximum due process to try to prevent any innocent person from going to jail. Plus our private property rights are constitutionally guaranteed to better protect our freedoms and the opportunity to succeed.
No nation has a tradition of altruism that can remotely rival ours. We helped save the world from tyranny by liberating “a suffering humanity” in not one but two world wars and then during a Cold War and right up to the present day. Nor has any nation given so much military, economic, technological, and philanthropic help to the rest of the world. Our nation’s Judeo-Christian commitment to the sacred value of every child of God was beautifully shown yet again in April of this year when we deployed 155 aircraft to rescue a single American military officer who had to eject from his plane over enemy-occupied Iran.
And no country’s citizens have the democratic might of Americans to determine our destiny via elections at the national, state, and local levels. We are so committed to democracy that voters not only get to choose between the various political party nominees for each elective office, but we even get to pick all the nominees of our chosen party. No wonder folks all over the world not allowed to vote in any election will vote with their feet to come to America, “the New Jerusalem,” “the New Promised Land,” that “shining city on a hill.” From 1620 to 1858, 388,000 black Africans were brought to the present-day U.S. on slave ships. But, just since 2000, 3.2 million black African immigrants have freely chosen to move here because, as a Nigerian told me, America “is the closest to a perfect country” due to all its great opportunities. In fact, the average median home income of Nigerian-Americans is over $5,000 higher than the average American’s. This is just one of the very many reasons why immigration involving America is all one way.
With all our bountiful blessings, we should recall how the Book of Luke instructs that “For those unto much has been given, much is required.” Sir Winston Churchill, the prime minister who led the United Kingdom to victory over Hitler in WWII, echoed this when he proclaimed that “The price of greatness is responsibility.” Precisely because we Americans live in the most free, democratic, rich, powerful, and blessed nation in history, we must use our might wisely, justly, and always morally, here and abroad.
Of course, despite all our liberty, government still has a huge impact on almost every aspect of our lives. Our elected public officials decide how much freedom we have regarding speech, the press, religion, assembly, protests, guns, birth control, abortion, homosexual rights, speed limits, smoking, alcohol, marijuana and other drugs, immigration, and on and on. Government makes and enforces the laws – and decides which laws will be enforced the most.
Look at just the enormous economic impact of government on all our lives via taxes, government jobs, government contracts, regulations, spending, interest rates, loans, education, and thousands of other public policies.
Ultimately, our federal government determines war and peace and can draft men to fight and die for the U.S., and 1.3 million Americans have made the final sacrifice for our freedom, giving their lives from the War for American Independence to the war in Iran. But local government may have an even bigger, more direct, and meaningful impact on our lives regarding the quality of schools, the police department, sheriff’s department, fire department, public hospitals, the cleanliness of our streets, trash pick-up, recycling, sewage, the water supply, zoning and noise ordinances, alcohol sales, and so much more.
But, as Americans, we can ultimately be in control of our government if we choose to keep up with what it is doing, contact our elected officials and the news media, protest for our beliefs, and vote. Please recall that free democratic societies are always the exception and ever under assault from enemies without and within. The Irish statesman Edmund Burke noted that “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Often the main foes of freedom are the folks who most fervently seek to save or protect us, and liberty has perhaps never faced as many or more powerful enemies in the U.S. as today. We have lost an enormous amount of our economic freedom via spiralling taxes and government regulations – and to think we fought a revolution largely over a three-cent-a-pound tax on tea. News flash: Britain’s King George III never taxed, regulated, or policed us remotely as much as “Fedzilla” (hat tip to Ted Nugent) does today.
Witness our growing national nanny state cracking down on personal freedoms. Did we really need the 2020-21 lockdowns over the Corona Virus? Some Democratic governors and mayors even banned church attendance. Look at the “hate speech” movement, especially on college and now even grade school campuses. Now almost all states have “hate crimes” laws — paging George Orwell’s 1984. How scared so many Americans have become even to be honest in public regarding any controversial issue in light of all the many reputations, careers, friends, and even families lost due to “cancel culture.”
Have no doubt, more than ever before, today’s leftists are waging war against all of our sacred Judeo-Christian values and the traditions of America’s Founding Fathers. As President Barack Obama boasted, they seek nothing less than “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” into a secular socialist superstate. We are engaged in a struggle for no less than the destiny and very soul of America — and the whole free world. Nothing less than Western Judeo-Christian civilization itself is at stake.
But, inspired by our faith, Constitution, and history, we can see to it that, to paraphrase William Faulkner, America “will not merely endure, but prevail.” However united by a common cause we are, it is as dedicated, hard-working individuals that we will either protect or lose what the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed as “the sacred heritage of our nation.” Just as Christ commands each of us to be a good servant of the Lord, so Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan’s favorite president, understood that “Duty is not collective; it is personal.” And, as General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson declared, “Duty is ours; consequences are God’s.” And every single one of us has a far greater impact on others than we will ever know.
Many years ago, at the funeral of an 80-year-old WWII veteran, in lieu of a eulogy, the pastor asked the departed’s friends to come forward and share how Sandy Head had positively impacted their lives. I knew Sandy as a brother volunteer at Athens, Georgia’s Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic, but I had no idea what an amazing life that man led, touching so many lives in so many helpful ways. One after another, people spoke of how “Sandy gave me a place to stay when I went through a rough patch in my marriage,” “Sandy did this for me,” “Sandy did that.” I sat there mesmerized, not even knowing most of these folks from Adam, because it turned out that this little-known gentleman, who we will never read about in a history book, had immeasurably enriched the lives of an enormous number of people. Truly, his really was a wonderful life. And what felt like the fastest church service of my life lasted almost two hours. When the final mourner sat down, the minister said, “You see, you see? Every single one of us is a role model – for better or worse – in everything we do and everything we don’t, in everything we say, and everything we leave unsaid. Yes, we all impact far more people than we will ever realize – for better or worse.”
So may all of us grateful for our American heritage stand tall with confidence and good cheer, rejoicing to be part of such a heroic people, flawed sinners like everyone but, as William Faulkner told us, “You don’t love because: you love despite; not for the virtues, but despite the faults.” And when our detractors insult or ridicule us, recall that a far better judge of your character than who your friends are, is who are your enemies. If you are doing right, you should relish every one of them, and I am glad to report that I believe traditional Americans have all the right enemies. And to be one of the four percent of the world’s people who are American, as well as one of the two percent with a college degree, and healthy to boot, we are the most blessed folks ever to walk this planet.
So let us utilize our record opportunities to the fullest and never forget we are Americans. Work hard to promote our values and recall, as the Canadian painter Greg Murphy observed: “The day no one is using you is the day you are useless.” Let us be grateful to be needed. Finally, may we recall what President Kennedy taught us:
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility — I welcome it…. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.
May God continue to bless the United States of America, and may we always be worthy of His blessing.
Beautiful. Thank you.
Now, off to the first night of fireworks celebrating all of that!
In the non-slave States government was probably at its low point, liberty at its high point, in 1860 – although there were disturbing developments in some States such as Massachusetts (the mad education system created by Horace Mann in 1852 – imitating Prussia, a system that did not come to some parts of England, such as the town I am in, till 1891), however slavery did indeed cast a terrible shadow over some (some) States.
So liberty for the whole nation probably peaked in 1876 – there was no income tax or Civil Service, and Jim Crow had not yet arrived in full force in the South, interestingly it was in 1876 that a young Woodrow Wilson first wrote attacking American principles.
However, as late as the start of 1913 America was still basically a free country – there was a horrible banking system (thanks to the emergency national banking acts that were passed during the Civil War – and, tragically, not repealed after it) – but it was not as bad (no way near as bad) as the Federal Reserve system that replaced it – and there was still no income tax.
Indeed the size of the Federal Government in 1912 was still very small indeed – most likely no bigger than it had ever been – as a proportion of the economy. So the idea that the Civil War created a “new government” is just wrong. Although I do not forget for a moment the evils in some States – such as the Jim Crow laws) (although the Jim Crow laws, evil though they were, in no way justify the reverse discrimination that has been seen in the United States since 1964), or the 1911 Sullivan “Gun Control” Act in New York State.
As for today, 2026, well government has exploded, liberty has massively declined, government spending has reached truly insane levels (although still lower than nations such as the United Kingdom – do not forget that) and endless regulations, such as licensing laws, choke most areas of life, but it is still worth remembering a vital fact – and it is a fact.
In no other major nation is there as much liberty as there is in the United States – and I do not mean in 1876 or 1912, I mean right-now. Where else has real Freedom of Speech – even in Switzerland people are arrested for peacefully expressing their opinions, under the vile “hate speech” doctrine, and how many nations have a real right to keep and bear arms – the foundation of liberty in both Classical (Ancient Greek and Republican Roman) law, and Germanic Common Law.
In France a woman can be arrested for criticizing her rapist (“racism”) – and the same is true in most Western nations, where even verbally opposing invasion by hostile populations, and the natural increase (births) of these hostile populations, is declared a “crime”, “Hate Speech” – reducing freedom of speech to such statements as “I like pussy cats” rather than what freedom of speech really is – statements the establishment does NOT want people to make.
And the things we all rightly condemn about the modern United States, such as the insanely high levels of government spending, are WORSE in most other Western nations.
As for the education system and “popular culture”, Hollywood and so on, they are Marxist dominated – that weird, mutant, form of Marxism that goes by such names as “Critical Theory” (“Critical Race Theory”, “Critical Legal Theory”, “Critical Gender Theory” and so on) – an odd name for a system of thought that it is rigidly dogmatic, not critical thinking at all. It never subjects its own assumptions “exploitation and oppression” to any critical thinking, and it is pushed by utterly vile people – such as Ivy League academics and Hollywood executives (indeed Corporate executives more generally – whether out of fear, or sincere belief, I do not know).
But let us not dwell on the degeneracy of the education system and culture – as it is just as bad, or worse, in many other Western nations.
My oh my, Prof Marks, but you do go on, don’t you.
No kings, and no Bishops (in Government).
Happy Birthday USA!
Just a shame your village fête on the National Mall is a total omnishambles…
But still, 250 not out is going well.
I read about various World Cup fans visiting the USA for the first time and seeing the real country, not the “coasts”. Freddy from Germany went viral with his posts (>10M IIRC). I read about a Japanese guy who was floored that he was brought free chips (the US kind!) and salsa at a Mexican restaurant, before even ordering his food! His cultural norms demanded that he eat all of it, lest he offend his host. But it was a “bottomless” basket of chips so he ate the second one they brought too!
I wonder if these are one offs or if they represent a lot of people from the rest of the world who are getting their first real look at America and are flabbergasted at the wealth, freedom, and friendliness? If true, what a great occurrence to coincide with the 250th Anniversary of the founding of Man’s last best hope.
If any of you have more information or insight on this phenomenon, or just thoughts, I’d love to hear about it.
Happy birthday to the USA! Imperfect but phenomenal.
Paul has been looking into the Palantir stone again. Beware — the Dark Lord controls it.
(Wrote this yesterday.) In DC for the 4th. Hot. Did I say hot? HOT. Navy and Air Force jets doing “practice” flights over the capitol this morning. Usually military pilots are given zero freedom of movement, but the solo Navy pilot out this morning had complete freedom to do anything he wanted. Barrel rolls, vertical power climbs, fancy complex turns, while we citizens cheered from the streets and balconies. What an amazing half hour of America’s Finest. Goosebumps!
https://x.com/TaraLaRosa/status/2072350974845260269
I think America’s birthday is surely to be celebrated, the founding of this nation is, in many respects, the founding of the modern world. Although it has done some bad things, even some terrible things, it has been a huge blessing and benefit to every person alive today. I am a patriotic American, not be coincidence of birth but by choice. I moved here and am very grateful for the abundant opportunities that has brought me and for the open, welcoming American people who took me in and treated me as one of their own. As I watch “the rockets’ red glare” tonight, as I put my hand on my heart and watch “our flag that is still there”, I will certainly be thinking about these things, and be very grateful for them.
I think though it is important to understand why America is great, why it has brought all the blessings to the world that it has. And, I am not really in alignment with the OP on several of these things. The greatness of America derives from a few things. One thing for sure is that we were gifted by a gigantic tract of largely virgin land (notwithstanding its often bothersome original inhabitants) filled with resources and opportunity, much of it the most fertile land anywhere on earth. And that land was protected on both sides by two gigantic oceans that allowed us to grow and develop entirely independently of the always destructive squabbles that had left Europe and the Orient constantly pouring resources into pointless, destructive wars. In England land was all owned by the nobility, giving them power over the lower classes who labored under their overlordship. In America, we had the radical concept that the government simply gave people land, land to own, land to work, land to exploit, land on which a man, whatever his station in life, could build a family, wealth and a dynasty. Is this unique in human history? I don’t know, but it sure isn’t common.
By a gigantic coincidence America was founded just at the start of the industrial revolution when technologies, especially the steam train, could be used to exploit all this land and connect us into a one massive whole.
And all of this land meant that we needed people, and so they came, from all corners of the globe to fill our land with people seeking out a new life. But this immigration process is a filter. Only the most diligent, the most hopeful, the ones willing to take a chance and chase their dreams were willing to make the arduous, journey and leave behind all they knew to start again. And so it was that our population was not a random sample of the world’s people, but rather our country’s population was seeded with the best, the most ambitious, the most hard working people, the people who dreamed big and fought hard to see those dreams come true. And that sort of thing manifests in the future both in genetics and culture, and we still see it today.
And then there is our constitution. All these early men just wanted government off their backs so that they could get on with things. In a sense that is the genesis of the American revolution. On this day 250 years ago Jefferson published that great declaration of independence which declared the reason for seeking separation, all of which were “get the government off our back” including my favorite line “[King George] has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”
Our nation was founded by some of the most remarkable humans to ever live, I think. Many were DEEPLY flawed people, Jefferson owned, used and sold many human beings on his farms, and felt deeply guilty about it, though not guilty enough to free them. But if we can look past this black mark on his soul and that of many others, they created a nation that was designed to NOT interfere with our people’s business. To keep government out of religion, out of speech, out of people’s day to day lives, so that we, the people, could go on the exercise this preference for hard work, seeking our dreams, take advantage of the abundant resources. Of course if you were black of Indian you were SOL, but as I said, America did many terrible things, compensated only by the gigantic good that it did. And 80 years later we paid a deep and heavy price for this black mark.
These, the resources, the industry and risk taking of its people, an isolation from war, while an abundance of trade and its government with a light hand on the tiller is the source of America’s greatness and the source of the many bounties it has bestowed on the rest of the world.
But let us not be complacent. In the last forty years America has changed, has turned away from the very things that made it great. We have made exploitation of resources all but impossible, we have suppressed in our education and culture the values that made Americans industrious, risk takers, and taxed the crap our of their success. We have filled our nation up with welfare seekers and people who hate us displacing the great American dream, we have thrown away our precious gift of isolation and started interfering in every corner of the world with our military and supposed foreign “aid” making enemies everywhere, and our precious constitution that demanded a light hand on the tiller has been transformed into a government that interferes in almost everything we do, and drains us dry with their outrageous taxes, and exhausts us with their byzantine regulations.
So as an atheist myself I do not say God blessed America, or hope that he will continue to do so. Rather it is the American people who blessed America with their industry and freedom, and those of us who appreciate it should heed the warning sirens I hear of its pending reversal. We have been passed a precious jewel in this country, but the forces of evil seek to destroy it. Surely, as we watch the fireworks of celebration tonight, we must redouble our efforts to preserve this precious gift.
IrishOtter49.
I was not long winded. And I told the truth – the bad and the good.
If you do not like the truth – that is your problem Sir.
Fraser Orr: Well done.
Pertinent to one of your points: Maybe the greatest thing E Musk will accomplish for us will be to once again give us frontiers.
Happy 250th birthday, USA. 🇺🇸
I guess I’ll just have to take Paul at his word that he’s telling the truth, or that his assertions and pronouncements are grounded in fact. That’s the grand thing about these forums, you can say whatever you want without providing any evidence of the accuracy or veracity of your statements. No footnotes, no source citations, no scholarly attribution . . . Nothing. It’s a beautiful thing.
@IrishOtter49:
My oh my, Prof Marks, but you do go on, don’t you.
This is undoubtedly true, surely PM produces 30% of the comment words on this site, but that doesn’t mean he is wrong. He made several assertions most of which I think are largely true, but rather than being snarky about it perhaps you can highlight which specific thing Paul said that you think is not true.
No footnotes, no source citations, no scholarly attribution
Its not a research paper, it is a discussion. So if you have questions or concerns you should ask. Or alternatively just ignore it. Ten minutes from now nobody is going to read this. It is more like a discussion down the pub, and you should treat it that way. I mean it can’t be fun down the pub with you if you are prone to say: “He Paul, its your round, I’ll have another pint, and BTW can you give me a citation for that thing you just said, APA format of course.”
That was a great read. Thanks. Happy birthday septics.
Two hundred and fifty years ago a group of smart Englishmen came up with the best system yet for governing their colony. You’re welcome.
Happy birthday America and may you have many more to come.
One of the things that is doing a great deal of damage to America is the flood of illegal immigrants we have. Although Trump has largely stopped the inflow there are still tens of millions already here, and it has proved very difficult to deport them.
An additional issue was just recently litigated in the US Supreme Court. The Trump administration tried to narrow the definition of who was granted automatic citizenship via the 14th amendment. However, the USSC threw out their argument, and the law is now clear — if you draw your first breath on American soil, you automatically get US Citizenship. This has lead to an industry of birth tourism where pregnant women come here to give birth and give their babies a very valuable gift of American citizenship. These “anchor babies” often are used to bring that baby’s parents and extended families here too on legitimate visas.
I was thinking about this abuse of our immigration system and what could be done. One thing for sure is that the law defines who a citizen can bring, and certainly the law need not automatically give an anchor baby’s family any rights whatsoever. And in fact it does not. Parents of such a minor child do not have any additional residency rights (until the child turns 21 when there are some options.) However, this does not seem to be the practice currently. The parents could take the baby back to their home country and raise him there. Later, the child can use his citizenship if he so choses, but that does not necessarily grant his parents or family any rights.
However, I was thinking about other ideas and one I came up with I don’t think I have heard before, and this one has the advantage of being entirely under the control of the executive branch.
The US tax code is unusual in that tax obligations apply to ALL US Citizens, even ones who have never lived here. So all those “accidental Americans”. as the term of art would be, have exactly the same tax obligations as every other US Citizen. That means they are required by law, assuming they meet a certain income threshold, to file a tax return. Failure to file a tax return for an extended period of time — even if you have never set foot in the USA — is a pretty serious matter. In “willful cases” which probably wouldn’t apply here, you can spend one year in jail for every year of failed filing. However, in non willful cases, the executive branch has huge punitive powers, should they chose to exercise them. The most significant ones are: 1. they can cancel an American passport and have the state department refuse to issue a new one, denying the accidental American entry into the United States; 2. they can levy potentially gigantic financial penalties; 3. they can use the FATCA act to force severe penalties on US citizens abroad including making it impossible to open a bank account and to freeze the assets of any existing bank account. Yes, believe it or not, the IRS, through international treaties, has significant enforcement power in most foreign banks, even ones entirely on foreign soil. In fact for Americans abroad it is often extremely hard to open a bank account due to the massive reporting and administrative burden the IRS imposes on nearly all foreign banks. No doubt this is solved by simply not telling the bank that they are a US citizen. And, FWIW, this is absolutely fraud and a violation of FACTA, pushing this accidental American into “willful” tax evasion and could certainly end them up in jail. The foreign dwelling US Citizen can obviate these sanctions by going to a US embassy and renouncing their unjustly obtained citizenship.
These powers are quite terrifying, and are not used currently in these circumstances. In fact the IRS has a specific program to help these “accidental Americans” to get in compliance. But it is purely an administrative thing and can absolutely be changed by the executive simply by EO with no role for the other branches of government.
The IRS is a terrifying agency, I hate them with a level of passion that very few other things raise in me, so this idea creeps me out, and I don’t know that an executive should do this, but they certainly could as a nuclear option to deal with this problem of unjustly obtained US Citizenship. If such citizenship is devalued by such an aggressive approach, and if the executive would also follow the law and deny family members any immigration benefits from the anchor baby and deport them when found, then such birth tourism would be much less valuable, and consequently happen a great deal less.
Like I say, I don’t think I have heard anyone else discuss this, so maybe I am crazy.
The Daily Telegraph recently had an article with an apology to Americans from an England football fan, he’d gone to the World Cup with his head full of the UK media’s projections of Americans and expected rudeness and arrogance, and said he was bowled over by how friendly people were and how wonderful his trip was, and how he’d been lied too. I think that says it all.
IrishOtter49
If you do not believe me, why do you not stop being so lazy and check for yourself? Alternatively stop attacking me – I have done nothing to you, and you have contributed nothing to this discussion, so you can fuck-right-off.
Mr Ed – that was nice.
The latest Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship is appalling and perverse. The 14th Amendment was so clearly designed to confirm that freed slaves were fully US citizens that only a lunatic or a communist could ever pretend to see otherwise. There are three communists on the bench, and it appears there are three lunatics as well.
Once Trump goes, if the Democratic crime gang win the presidency and the congress, they will pack the court, and the USA as we have known it will be finished. Sorry to rain on the 250th parade. I am not saying Britain is any better. It is far, far worse.
@JohnK
The 14th Amendment was so clearly designed to confirm that freed slaves were fully US citizens that only a lunatic or a communist could ever pretend to see otherwise.
I am neither a lunatic nor a communist and yet I think the USSC decision was probably correct though INAL and I have not researched the legal history of that “subject to the jurisdiction” part of the clause. It doesn’t matter what it was “designed to do” it matters what it says, and you have to twist yourself in some pretty Gordian knots to find a way to exclude anchor babies from the text. Judges or Justices are not law makers or public policy makers, they simply interpret what the law says. Otherwise we end up with an activist judiciary who think they can impose their will and personal preferences on us. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
There are three communists on the bench, and it appears there are three lunatics as well.
The liberal justices are not communists. Each simply has a more activist view point when it suits them. ACB has been a disappointment but I don’t think she is ideological, and she certainly isn’t a lunatic. I think she rules based on the text of the law, and that is sometimes disappointing to the conservative movement. As to Roberts, he just seems more concerned with the reputation and operation of the court than he is in the administration of justice. The one that really stands out is Sotomayor, who is certainly a DEI pick, and from listening to her I actually think she is stupid — she doesn’t seem to have the intelligence required to even pass the bar exam, though I suppose she must have done so. For example, she famously ranted from the bench clearly not knowing the difference between de facto and de jure. In fact she can’t, apparently even pronounce de jure correctly.
@JohnK
The 14th Amendment was so clearly designed to confirm that freed slaves were fully US citizens that only a lunatic or a communist could ever pretend to see otherwise.
I am neither a lunatic nor a communist and yet I think the USSC decision was probably correct though INAL and I have not researched the legal history of that “subject to the jurisdiction” part of the clause. It doesn’t matter what it was “designed to do” it matters what it says, and you have to twist yourself in some pretty Gordian knots to find a way to exclude anchor babies from the text. That isn’t to say I like the outcome, on the contrary, I think it is a dreadful outcome, but it does seem to be what the law says. Judges or Justices are not law makers or public policy makers, they simply interpret what the law says. Otherwise we end up with an activist judiciary who think they can impose their will and personal preferences on us.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. We can’t expect people to accept the overturning of the ridiculous Roe vs Wade and then indulge in the very same judicial activism to achieve our ends. I’m not anti abortion, I am anti judicial activism.
There are three communists on the bench, and it appears there are three lunatics as well.
The liberal justices are not communists. Each simply has a more activist view point when it suits them. ACB has been a disappointment but I don’t think she is ideological, and she certainly isn’t a lunatic. I think she rules based on the text of the law, and that is sometimes disappointing to the conservative movement. As to Roberts, he just seems more concerned with the reputation and operation of the court than he is in the administration of justice. The one that really stands out is Sotomayor, who is certainly a DEI pick, and from listening to her I actually think she is stupid — she doesn’t seem to have the intelligence required to even pass the bar exam, though I suppose she must have done so. For example, she famously ranted from the bench clearly not knowing the difference between de facto and de jure. Apparently she can’t even pronounce de jure correctly.
The American Revolution is just about the only one in human history that more-or-less worked. The French Revolution got going around the same time, and didn’t turn out so well. And the less said about the Russian Revolution, and the horrors that flowed from it, the better,
Fraser:
It seems to me that a foreigner living in the USA, either legally or illegally, is “subject to the jurisdiction” of their own country. The 14th Amendment was about the status of freed slaves and nothing else. The freed slaves were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They had no other country or allegiance.
I take your point that Sotomayor may be stupid. That does not preclude her from being a communist. The two conditions are not mutually exclusive. I do not know what Kavanaugh or Coney-Barrett’s excuses are. Roberts is scum.
Fraser:
It’s not Ketanji Brown Jackson who stands out?
@Ted Schuerzinger
It’s not Ketanji Brown Jackson who stands out?
She is a lot more radical, but she seems quite capable, even if I disagree with her philosophy. And, FWIW, she defended terrorists at Guantanamo bay as a public defender. Some might consider that a black mark on her record. Me, for my part, I think it is quite admirable.
@JohnK
It seems to me that a foreigner living in the USA, either legally or illegally, is “subject to the jurisdiction” of their own country.
So, if such a person were to steal your car it would be your opinion that the American courts would have no jurisdiction to prosecute such a crime? For the well known example of people not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA, namely foreign diplomats, they would indeed be exempt from such prosecution. Were it the case that illegal immigrants were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States it seems to me that ICE and the courts would not be able to deport them having no jurisdiction over them. But, again, INAL, and I haven’t done any detailed research on the meaning of this phrase.
I rather suspect that the reason the justices vetoed the US administration on the 14th is that it was a cack-handed attempt to override the US Constitution, something no president has the power to do.
Fraser Orr is correct when he states: “It doesn’t matter what it was ‘designed to do’ it matters what it says, and you have to twist yourself in some pretty Gordian knots to find a way to exclude anchor babies from the text.”
Gun control arguments over the Second Amendment are similar: lots of sophistry about it being outdated and that it was designed for the days of muskets, etc., etc., blah, blah… but “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is a pretty straightforward statement.
It looks very much like the current incumbent of the Oval Office has tried and failed to do an end-run around the Constitution, possibly because he knows he’s out of time, is now approaching the lame duck period of his presidency and any attempt at change – successful or otherwise – would take more time than he has left.
Fraser:
I see no reason why a foreigner living in the USA, either legally or illegally, would not be subject to the laws of the USA, including the 14th amendment. But from the timing and context of the amendment it is perfectly clear what it was for. There was no other reason for it other than to establish beyond any doubt that freed slaves were American citizens. The idea that a constitutional amendment would have been sought to establish that any random immigrant who happened to be pregnant would give birth to a US citizen is beyond absurd.
@JJM
It looks very much like the current incumbent of the Oval Office has tried and failed to do an end-run around the Constitution, possibly because he knows he’s out of time, is now approaching the lame duck period of his presidency and any attempt at change – successful or otherwise – would take more time than he has left.
I think you do him an injustice. He has a mandate to fix the horrible immigration problems in the United States, our congress is to all intents and purposes non functional, he tried a strategy to implement his mandate, pushing the law and wording of the law to its limits. This is standard politics. Apparently four justices agreed with him, even though five did not. I think it has noting do do with his feeling time is running out, in fact, if I remember rightly, this challenge was brought quite early in his term.
@JohnK
I see no reason why a foreigner living in the USA, either legally or illegally, would not be subject to the laws of the USA
How is “subject to the laws” and “subject to the jurisdiction” in this context any different? “Jurisdiction” means the legal power, right and authority to enforce the laws, which you have just conceded they have.
But from the timing and context of the amendment it is perfectly clear what it was for.
So what? It is what is written in the law that matters. We have a mechanism in our constitution to correct this if we so chose — it is called an amendment. We should not circumvent the amendment process by simply reinterpreting the words of the law to suit our preferences.
Fraser:
If there is doubt about the wording of a law, or constitutional amendment in this case, it is open to the court to examine the contemporary words of those who framed the law to see their intention. The meaning of the 14th amendment is clear. It took quite some mental gymnastics to come to any other conclusion. Why Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett did this I do not know. Roberts is filth, so no surprise there.
Anyway, the point I am making is valid. After Trump, if the Democrat crime family win the presidency and congress, they will have no difficulty in packing the supreme court and thus cementing their take-over of the USA. From then on, there will still be a country called the USA, but it will not be the same country, and any constitutional protections will count for nothing. It’s a grim prospect, but there is no point pretending it is not a possibility.
@JohnK although I think you are wrong on this constitutional question, I do have a lot of concern about the future democrat administration, especially when you consider the absolute whack jobs they are electing. I mean AOC is a moderate in the democrat party now. It is why I am so frustrated with this whole Israel split in the Republican party which just seems the opposite of putting America first like the President promised. That and this terribly mistaken war in Iran, and the President’s failure to address what he promised (with the exception of immigration for which he gets a B+) has left us in this situation. The American economy is in a dreadful state and he is mostly responsible for that.
FWIW, I said it at the time and I’ll say it again, the assassination of Charlie Kirk is in many respects at the root of all of this. Few people understand the degree to which he was holding the party together, and the degree to which he got the President elected. I think if you were a democrat operative that assassination was the most effective political move they could have made. Not that I think it was a big plan or anything, the guy who killed him was just a typical freaky loser, they just breed a lot of freaky losers and got “lucky”.
The one hope we have is the AI and robotics revolution. The real question, the thing that will decide our future, is how much the democrats interfere with this. Unfortunately Elon’s big mouth and sophomoric tweeting and his associating with the President have made him a target for them, so that worries me a lot.
FWIW, I have just finished reading Walter Issacson’s biography of Musk and it is excellent, although it ends before it gets to his participation in 2024 and DOGE. It communicates the extreme complexity of this man, both his asshole, sophomoric behavior, his black mood swings, the horrible way he treats many people, especially those close to him, and his utter genius, impossible work ethic, and his ability to drive people and teams to a level of excellence that they never thought was possible. He is a singularity, the most important human alive today, and a gift to humanity. I highly recommend the book.
Fraser: When travel was expensive, hard, and arduous, yes that filtered for the best, the committed. What is being filtered for now that you can travel anywhere for the price of a packet of fags with no more thought that whether to change your socks?
Sadly, the USSC got the Birth Citizenship ruling exactly right. So we still have the system that we’ve had for the last 150 years or more.
It was not a problem until we opened the borders. Before that, long ago, we didn’t have enough poor foreign nationals coming in, and so the number of poor babies was low.
Not sure what the goal was in bringing this lawsuit. Actually, I can think of several possibilities, but can’t pick one. I’m slightly going for, this sets the stage for some legislative work-arounds (in the spirit of Frazer Orr’s discussion above.)
(The law is clear on this issue. In our law system, in order to argue “what that law means”, there is a set order in which types of evidence can be considered.
You start with the black-letter law, in this case the words of the 14th Am. If that language sets out an explicit and logically clear concept, that’s it. You’re done. The words always win.
Unless . . . . unless the words used are poorly chosen and unclear and admit of more than one contradictory meaning. And the words of the 14th don’t do that.
“Subject to the jurisdiction . . .” is a fairly clear legal statement.
If an illegal alien kills someone while in the USA, can he be prosecuted? Yes. This is because he is “subject to the jurisdiction” – the power – of the USA.
Who isn’t subject to this jurisdiction? Foreign diplomats, and anyone else whom the USA admits with a special grant of dispensation from that jurisdiction.
Now, we have two different conversations going on. Is birthright citizenship a good idea? And, does the Constitution call for it?
And people are confusing the issue of, which conversation has any meaning right now? It is actually only the second convo.
If we want to change it, we should have THAT conversation, but for now, it is what it is.
The birthright citizenship mess in the USA is one reason, despite all our own huge problems, I’m still glad Britain doesn’t have a written constitution.
Britain abolished automatic birthright citizenship in 1983. This was from an act of parliament passed in 1981. No executive orders needed, no supreme court bollocks.
Given the current political composition and polarisation in the USA I would assume the chance of a constitutional amendment happening in the next several decades is slim to nil
@Martin
The birthright citizenship mess in the USA is one reason, despite all our own huge problems, I’m still glad Britain doesn’t have a written constitution.
Totally, and that is why you Brits can have an AR-15 in your closet to protect yourselves, and you can say anything you want on the Internet without fear of government reprisals.
The 14th amendment was passed in 1868 during the period of reconstruction. It was clearly intended to apply to freed slaves and their children. Native tribes were excluded because they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They were only accepted as US citizens in the 1920s. The idea that legislators in 1868 wanted to make sure that any pregnant Guatemalan turning up in Texas could give birth to a US citizen is bizarre.
But that doesn’t matter now.
Whatever was “clearly intended” is trumped by the words they used in the new law. Words matter very very much when drafting legislation. Or amendments. This was careless drafting.
One value of law is certainty. We give words their facial meaning in laws and regs, because we don’t want to have to argue over “intentions” every time we try to enforce those words.
You’re trying to argue that we ought not have birthright citizenship in the USA. I agree with you. But we do.
“Native tribes were excluded because they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.”
An Indian who murdered someone was certainly subject to arrest and punishment – because they were subject to the US jurisdiction. They were given many rather fictional dispensations to make it seem like they were sovereign – but they weren’t and aren’t. Federal cops routinely enter reservations and make arrests.
@bobby b
Now, we have two different conversations going on. Is birthright citizenship a good idea? And, does the Constitution call for it?
This is a distinction that so many people seem utterly unable to grasp. It is why reasonable intelligent people on both the left and the right seem to think that the US Supreme Court banned abortion, or more recently, some commenter here told us they decided election fraud was just fine, or a recent decision from the court banned trans athletes from sports, and on and on with every decision. None of that is true. The court ruled on the meaning of the law and its constitutionality, not its correctness or moral virtue. It is the role of the legislature both federal and state, to decide what the law should say.
Of course many judges and justices sometimes like to get outside of this role and behave as mini, unelected, unaccountable legislators. This is called judicial activism and it is no more wrong, unconstitutional and undemocratic when the activism results in a decision that you favor than in a decision you abhor. I think abortion should be allowed within some reasonable limits, but I still think Roe vs Wade was an abomination.
Bobby:
I think you show how the term “subject to the jurisdiction” is misapplied.
Native tribes were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They were alien. They did not have US citizenship, even though they were born within the USA. This did not mean they got a free pass if they decided to kill a few settlers. An illegal immigrant is likewise alien, but that does not mean they can commit crime with impunity, unless they live in a blue state.
Anyway, the Supreme Court has spoken. I think they got this epically wrong. Sadly for me, that does not matter at all. The only thing which does matter is to keep the Democratic crime family out of the White House when Trump goes. I can only hope.
“I think it has noting do do with his feeling time is running out, in fact, if I remember rightly, this challenge was brought quite early in his term.”
It matters not a whit. His second term will soon be half over. He’s toast.
JohnK:
Before I retired – and actually, before I went to commercial practice – I was licensed to appear as an attorney on numerous Minnesota/Dakotas Indian reservations. I had to learn Indian law – different for each reservation – in order to do so.
And I can tell you for sure that Indian rez law is sort of like municipal law in the non-rez areas. IOW, you can have your own law system, and enforce your own regs, but you are always UNDER the federal law system.
Serious violations of laws like assault could be prosecuted on the rez, but they could also be grabbed by the nearest USA attorney and hauled into federal court.
Federal law, primarily the Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153), grants the federal government and FBI jurisdiction over crimes committed by Native Americans on tribal lands
Jurisdiction, vis-a-vis Indian reservations, is always an outlier, and so it’s never been a good example to use in the birthright argument. The idea that they are true sovereign nations is a fiction, designed to get them to sign treaties.
Agree. Many people do not see the logic of the balancing three-part way our federal government is divided. The each-part-with-different-powers-checking-the-absolute-powers-of-the-others just doesn’t register.
To them, we merely have three bunches of people constantly fighting for power.
And, sadly, when we staff the three parts of government with people who either don’t understand the Constitution, or who see profit in ignoring it, we get . . . what we have now.
So now, if you cannot legislate, your allies on the USSC are supposed to super-legislate. Or your President is supposed to also super-legislate with EO’s.
And that guarantees a mess. Or a war.
Fraser Orr:
re: Justice Jackson – She is one who thinks that the role of the USSC is that of a super-legislature. To her, they are not opining on constitutionality. They are legislating as they personally see fit. She is the anti-Scalia.
For that reason, I see her as a horrid, horrid Justice. She will do her best to defeat the constitutional design of balancing 3-part government.
If any of my statements of fact (both the bad and the good of the situation of the United States) were in error I am happy to correct them.
But if people are just going to say “you have not cited…..” (various works, that when one checks, do NOT contain the information, because such works contain nothing useful – you either do the hard work of finding out information yourself, or you do NOT have the information) then they can jump in the nearest lake.
I remember “Wikipedia” – which even removed facts I presented about the late Professor Flew – because they were not from “reliable sources” (i.e. wildly unreliable sources – the media and so on), but were “personal research” (in this case – from the man himself).
Something that is not “personal research” is unimportant – it is precisely “personal research” that is of value. That is what takes the work.
The most unique and counterintuitive part of the American story was a founding group that – unlike every other humans drawn to politics, from Nimrod til today – did not seek power or personal gain, but simply to be left the @#$!@ alone. And unique among Enlightenment dreamers for their streak of ornery pragmatism regarding human nature, and the lure of power.
I am a native-born American Jew – privileged to inherit a part in 2 of the biggest human stories God set in motion.
A covenant with the one true God, and another, related covenant with my fellow men.
Bobby:
Obviously, nowadays native Americans are US citizens, and have been since the 1920s. In 1868 they certainly were not US citizens, even though they were born and lived in the USA. That fact alone ought to show that the 14th amendment did not confer birthright citizenship upon anyone who happened to be born within the USA.
Fraser Orr:
Sorry for the time taken, I was not in a position to make lengthy comments earlier.
First of all, there appears to be a lack of resolution between different legal concepts, e.g. in terms of the criminal law, it applies to every person (real person) and sometimes ‘legal but not real people’ (corporations) within the jurisdiction. And the criminal law does apply to diplomats as much as anyone else, it’s just that they can claim immunity as part of an embassy (and their government can waive it too), diplomatic immunity is a privilege against law enforcement, nothing more.
There is also as regards the 14th A, the question (much ignored in libertarian-oriented thought) of domicile, which is attachment to a legal system. Take the celebrated Norwegian footballer Mr Haaland, (soon to get belated and benign revenge for Stamford Bridge in 1066); he was born in Leeds, England, when his Dad was playing for Leeds United. Whether he got British citizenship or not, I know not. He would under English law have got his domicile (Norwegian) from his father (it is paternally inherited, if the father is know), otherwise it is maternally-inherited and for foundlings there is ‘domicile of origin’, so the legal system you belong to is thus determined. So if a random British tourist woman gives birth in America, her child has the father’s domicile if he is known, if not, hers, and the happy accident of birth in the USA is neither here nor there, it is just that the USA has the 14th Amendment, the wording of which seems crystal clear as saying ‘born in USA = citizen thereof’. AIUI, the Trump Administration brought the suit that led to the recent judgment, which is baffling if they were trying to make a change to the current law. Did someone take the case on knowing it would fail and blow up in the Administration’s face?
@Mr Ed
diplomatic immunity is a privilege against law enforcement, nothing more.
INAL, but I think you are incorrect. The “immunity” is specifically immunity from American jurisdictions, and it is because they are immune from those jurisdictions that they are not subject to law enforcement. And it is also why if they have children here those children do not get US citizenship. FWIW there are different levels of immunity. Senior diplomats are immune from criminal and civil jurisdiction whereas embassy support staff are usually only immune to criminal jurisdiction, and there are other lower levels where the immunity only applies to official acts. I don’t know what the USSC decided in regards to “which” jurisdiction the 14th referred to, that is a way deeper question than I am qualified to answer.
FWIW, it is also why the myth that, for example, the British Embassy in Washington is British territory is simply not true it is absolutely American territory. However, it is immune to US jurisdictions meaning that, for example, a search warrant cannot be served on the place since an American judge has no jurisdiction to issue one. At the most basic level this is true, but there are other rules that the US is bound by with regards to embassies due to being a signatory of the Vienna Convention.
the Trump Administration brought the suit that led to the recent judgment, which is baffling if they were trying to make a change to the current law. Did someone take the case on knowing it would fail and blow up in the Administration’s face?
What makes you say it blew up in their face? Just because they did not win (and it was surely worth a good college try) does not mean it did not serve many other useful purposes. I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to imagine what benefits making the case, even if it failed, accrued to the administration and the movement it represents.