Trump Frenzy and Tantrums Over Pending Ruling on Birthright Citizenship and Recent Ruling on Presidential Tariffs by the US Supreme Court
Trump rails against birthright citizenship in rambling Truth Social post and warns Supreme Court about keeping it https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-rails-against-birthright-citizenship-123638438.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr via u/YahooNews
He is Mr. Babyman Stupid spouting off his ignoramus mouth about loyalty to the [US] Constitution while evidencing hardly a clue as to what it says. As to birthright citizenship, tell that windbag idiot and his stooped-over, sloth-footed and lumbering hippo-in-a-suit and insult-contriving smack-attack cliche-snorting-and-grunting communications director, and their MAGA airhead echo-chamber mob chorus of White House anti-Constitutional mobsters, to read what the text, the stated written law, of the supreme law of the supreme US Constitution prescribes to constitute US citizenship:
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
On this matter of US citizenship, the supreme US Constitution, in its hereinabove quoted supreme constitutional law, prescribes unambiguously and clearly in the language of its own text as to what constitutes US citizenship. It speaks for itself definitively and with finality, and is not subject to outside re-interpretation, glib, gaslighting, sophistry, chicanery, etc., and overlay tampering in or by the federal or any other US courts or political or governance bodies. It is textual standing supreme US Constitutional law that the justices of the US Supreme Court are duty bound to adhere to, uphold, re-state and reaffirm in their judicial ruling as to what the law is as to what constitutes qualified US citizenship according to the language of the US Constitution and determine who or what is in violation or conflict with the said US Constitutional law, and are duty bound to order and enforce compliance with that US Constitutional law. Neither the judicial system, including its Supreme Court, nor the president of the USA has any US Constitutional legislative and law-making authority, powers, which, instead, the US Constitution confers exclusively on the US Congress, https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm#a1, whose federal statutory laws in the USA are subordinate only the US Constitution and its laws. However, the US Congress cannot lawfully, that is, Constitutionally lawfully, change US Constitutional law except by the [arduous] amendment process of the US Constitution prescribed by and in the US Constitution.
Likewise, the US Supreme Court was US Constitutionally duty bound to rule, as it did in its 6-to-3 judicial ruling among its 9 justices (which should have been 9 to 0, to have been 100%, unanimous, in adherence and fealty to the US Constitution), that the US president had no sovereign authority, independently of or autonomously from the US Congress or the US Constitution, to levy tariffs, a taxation and levying authority (subsuming and including all charges and fees) on any or all [US Congressionally or Constitutionally referenced] designation of goods, services, etc., or equitable per-capita measure of persons, such as for the purpose of allocating federal funds...) as well as all legislative authority, both authorities of which are conferred exclusively to the US Congress in Article I of the US Constitution, https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-rejects-trumps-global-tariffs-2026-02-20/ . The Supreme Court determined that President Trump neither in the historical context of its applicable use by past presidents granted the same authority by the same legislative act of the US Congress, nor in his use of that US Congressional act, wrongfully to impose tariffs, acted in accord with the language prescribing the intended use of the act by a president lawfully as regards the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-91/pdf/STATUTE-91-Pg1625.pdf, which authorizes the president to seize assets, block [financial] transactions and to prosecute offenders for sentences of 20 years of imprisonment and substantial fines during a national emergency, such as in providing or receiving financial support connected to international terrorism, rampant organized crime, guerilla war, subversion and insurrection, riots, etc., a federal statuary law that makes no reference to or provision for the incumbent president to impose tariffs or taxes of any kind nor of the president being granted the right to do so, to independently impose tariffs in emergencies. President Trump has been referencing the IEEPA as his legal source of authority for imposing tariffs based on his argument that the net trade deficit of the USA with other nations is a national emergency and that he has the authority under IEEPA to arrogate the exclusive US Constitutional authority and power of the US Congress to impose tariffs on his own initiative as an economic tool of his as US president to engineer the balance of trade between the USA and each of the other nations of the world, universally, in favor of the USA, America first. Moreover, one justice factually and crucially, from a legality standpoint, pointed out, in effect, that the US Congress, nevertheless, did not have the right to delegate its exclusive US Constitutional power to tax and impose tariffs, without changing the US Constitution through the amendment process of the US Constitution to delegate or share it with the president, with the terms of the sharing still needing therein to be clearly stated, delineated and circumscribed, as to under what circumstances and generally for how long, the emergency power of the president to impose tariffs, tariff taxes (import or export taxes, as distinct from income, sales or consumption, etc., taxes), would apply. The underlying message of this ruling by the Supreme Court was that if the president lawfully, US Constitutionally so, wants to impose tariffs that he can go to the US Congress and request that it pass legislation to impose them.
