Supreme court signals hesitation on birthright citizenship

The long-running debate over birthright citizenship may hinge on a surprisingly cautious Supreme Court. Jonathan Turley, writing in The Hill, suggests the justices, despite a clear conservative lean, showed little enthusiasm for dismissing the customary 14th Amendment interpretation in the case of Trump v. Barbara. The implications, should the Court uphold the existing precedent, are considerable – and potentially require a constitutional amendment.

A thorny historical record

While arguments against birthright citizenship exist, Turley notes the historical record is far from conclusive. Claims of widespread abuse of the system, often cited by critics, failed to sway the conservative justices during recent arguments. The core issue – whether an “open borders” policy combined with automatic citizenship poses an existential threat to the nation – remains a potent political argument, but the legal path forward is murky.

The public, ultimately, may hold the final say. As Turley points out, amending the Constitution could be the only way to align US law with the practices of most developed nations.

Nato’s fading relevance exposed

Beyond the Supreme Court, a deeper question about US foreign policy is surfacing: is NATO still worth the investment? Roger Kimball, in American Greatness, argues the alliance has long outlived its purpose, losing its rationale with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But a recent episode highlights a more immediate concern. When the US requested overflight rights through European NATO member nations during its recent actions in Iran, the response was largely negative. The fact that the US, a primary financial backer of NATO, was rebuffed in securing support from its allies underscores a fundamental problem: reciprocity.

Kimball’s point is stark: an ally is not merely a nation reliant on US strength, but one upon which the US can, in turn, depend. Too many NATO countries, it seems, fall short of this reciprocal relationship.

Iran's escalation point and us resolve

The situation in Iran is reaching a critical juncture, according to Mark Penn, who suggests the next two weeks could prove decisive. Iran's accumulation of an astounding 5,000 ballistic missiles – a stockpile exceeding that of the US or even Russia – presents a significant threat. Penn contends that the regime remains firmly in control, retaining the capacity to launch attacks, and that a further escalation will be needed to dislodge it.

Despite the challenges, the US and Israeli resolve appears steadfast. The successful rescue of a downed US pilot serves as a potent reminder of American military competence. The odds, for now, favor US intervention, although the political ramifications of such a move are significant.

Finally, a bizarre incident in California highlights the potential for election fraud when safeguards are lax. A woman reportedly registered to vote on behalf of her dog, a consequence of the state's relaxed ID requirements. Critics argue that California’s lenient rules, mirroring its generous welfare programs, practically invite fraud, and that a push to require citizenship verification has been repeatedly blocked by Democrats and unions. The prospect of such policies being implemented nationwide should raise serious concerns about the integrity of future elections and the potential erosion of democratic principles.