Trial Attorney David Schwartz, President of Gotham Government Relations ⁨‪@NewsmaxTV‬ Talking Supreme Court & 14th Amendment

0:08
To hear President Trump's
0:09
order that limits
0:11
birthright citizenship.
0:12
And this is a principle
0:13
that's been standard U.S.
0:14
law since the 14th
0:16
amendment was first
0:17
adopted in 1868. This
0:18
order would block
0:20
automatic citizenship for
0:22
children born to
0:22
non-citizen parents. A
0:24
ruling is expected to come
0:26
in spring 2026 and could
0:28
rewrite who qualifies as
0:29
an American citizen. This
0:31
is a big one. For more.
0:33
Let's welcome our legal
0:33
scholars, attorney and
0:35
conservative political
0:36
commentator Peter Llamas
0:37
and New York trial
0:39
attorney and president of
0:41
Gotham Government
0:41
Relations, David Schwartz.
0:44
Thank you both for being
0:45
with us. And of course,
0:46
our in studio special
0:48
guest, Deneen Borelli and
0:49
Doctor Tom Borelli. Glad
0:50
you're here too. Welcome,
0:52
guys. So, David, your
0:54
reaction on this case? My
0:58
reaction is I think the
1:00
14th amendment is pretty
1:01
clear that that all
1:03
children born in the
1:04
United States are
1:06
automatically United
1:07
States citizens. So it's
1:09
codified. It's in the
1:10
Constitution. It's
1:11
codified by federal law.
1:13
And I don't think the
1:15
Supreme Court is going to
1:17
overturn that precedent.
1:17
Let me just as a follow up,
1:19
isn't it true, though,
1:21
that even at the time
1:22
there were exceptions, for
1:24
example, ambassadors from
1:25
other countries whose
1:27
wives gave birth while
1:29
they were visiting the
1:30
United States? There have
1:31
been limited exceptions
1:33
like that. But in a case
1:36
where someone is living in
1:39
the United States and they
1:41
have they have a baby.
1:43
That baby has always been
1:45
a United States citizen. I
1:47
don't see where the
1:48
Supreme Court is going to
1:50
overturn the precedent and
1:52
carve out different
1:54
circumstances. Peter,
1:55
what's your response to to
1:57
that interpretation that
1:58
David had? Because the
1:59
14th amendment, it talks
2:01
about those under the
2:02
jurisdiction of the United
2:03
States. What's your
2:04
response? Well, the 14th
2:06
amendment, actually. And
2:06
good morning, by the way,
2:08
makes it clear that you
2:09
have to have two kinds of
2:10
jurisdictions over the
2:11
person in the United
2:13
States, and that is both
2:14
political jurisdiction and
2:15
territorial jurisdiction.
2:16
Now, territorial
2:17
jurisdiction is when
2:18
someone lives in the
2:19
United States. Obviously,
2:20
we can if they commit a
2:22
crime, they can go to
2:23
prison. You can take them
2:23
in front of a judge, you
2:25
name it. But political
2:27
jurisdiction is the most
2:28
important part of the 14th
2:29
amendment, which deals as
2:29
to whether we have that
2:31
political power to send
2:33
someone, let's say, ask
2:34
them to join the military
2:35
or serve on a jury duty,
2:37
etc. we don't have
2:38
political jurisdiction
2:39
over the people who are
2:40
visiting the United States
2:41
or who are illegal in the
2:42
United States because they
2:43
owe allegiance to their
2:44
country, not to the United
2:46
States states, and
2:47
therefore the Supreme
2:47
Court, not very clearly,
2:49
but so far has maintained
2:51
the position that unless
2:52
we have both political
2:52
jurisdiction and
2:53
territorial jurisdiction
2:54
over the individual, the
2:56
parent in the United
2:57
States, the child born to
2:58
that, to those parents
2:59
should not be recognized
3:00
as an American citizen. So
3:01
I think Donald Trump has a
3:03
pretty good chance
3:04
actually to overturn, or
3:05
at least at least have a
3:06
clear interpretation by
3:08
the Supreme Court what it
3:09
means to be an American
3:10
born citizen. So I think
3:11
he has a pretty good
3:13
chance to win this case.
3:14
That is so interesting.
3:15
And of course, way back
3:17
then, 1868, there was no
3:18
such thing as illegal
3:19
immigration versus legal
3:20
immigration because there
3:22
were no immigration laws
3:23
yet. Correct? That is
3:25
correct. At that time we
3:27
were dealing with visitors.
3:27
We were dealing with
3:29
ministers, ambassadors,
3:30
people who were in United
3:32
States for a different
3:32
purpose or reason and not
3:35
to become American
3:36
citizens, not to be part
3:37
of the the American legal
3:39
system, if you will. Sure.
3:41
Those were the exceptions
3:41
that were carved out by
3:42
the by the 14th amendment,
3:44
but it's clear. I mean,
3:45
Tom, I want to get you in
3:48
here. Obviously, you can't
3:49
ignore congressional
3:50
intent here. And the 14th
3:51
amendment, when it was
3:52
established shortly after
3:53
the Civil War, it was to
3:55
address those that were
3:56
enslaved humans and making
3:58
sure that they were
3:59
citizens of the United
3:59
States. Is that not
4:00
correct? Excellent point.
4:03
I think that's the most
4:04
important point. What was
4:04
the intent at the time?
4:07
Looking back over 200
4:08
years, you know, it's hard
4:09
to make that drug. My big
4:10
concern about this case is
4:12
the precedent that has
4:13
already been set. But
4:15
you're right. I think at
4:16
the time it was made to
4:18
make sure that slaves or
4:18
former slaves were U.S.
4:20
citizens, period. Full
4:21
stop. Yeah. I mean, that's
4:23
clear. And you can
4:24
ascertain that from, you
4:26
know, the time of the
4:27
House proceedings and so
4:27
forth. But I do want to
4:29
shift gears here. Our U.S.
4:31
military strikes against
4:31
those drug trafficking
4:32
vessels near Villafruela
4:33
are fueling a heated war
4:35
with powers debates. And
4:36
Congress lawmakers warn
4:38
the operations may exceed
4:40
the president's authority,
4:41
while the administration
4:42
insists it has full legal
4:45
backing. Peter, what are
4:45
your thoughts about what's
4:48
happening there off of the
4:49
Venezuelan coast? Actually,
4:49
we'll start with you,
4:50
David. Let's get you in
4:52
here. I mean, I think the
4:54
administration has a
4:56
meritorious argument that
4:57
that these narcotics
4:58
traffickers are that we
5:01
can wage war against them.
5:03
My problem is in this most
5:04
recent case, are those two
5:06
survivors that were
5:07
clinging on to the boat.
5:09
And when you look at our
5:12
rules of engagement, our
5:14
own rules of engagement,
5:15
our Pentagon rules of
5:16
engagement, as well as
5:17
international law
5:18
concerning war, the the
5:21
idea of killing those two
5:24
people after the after the
5:25
boat was destroyed, maybe.
5:29
Yeah, but we received
5:30
reports that that wasn't
5:30
accurate, that Hague said
5:32
did not give that order.
5:34
Right. Isn't that correct?
5:35
That's correct. And the
5:36
other thing is these drug
5:37
traffickers, they don't
5:38
care about our laws. So
5:39
this sends a signal to
5:41
anyone who thinks they can
5:42
take a boat and try to get
5:43
drugs into our country. We
5:46
have way too many children
5:47
and adults who have been
5:49
killed because of illegal
5:51
drugs. So I say line them
5:52
up and keep on coming. But
5:54
we're going to come after
5:56
you. Doctor Tom, are you
5:56
are you planning to cancel
5:58
your fishing trip to
5:59
Venezuela, or are you guys
6:01
still going this year?
6:01
What's the no cruises
6:02
around for the Borelli's.
6:04
That's right. You get the
6:06
final word on the
6:07
Venezuelan boats is Pete
6:08
Hegseth and the president.
6:09
Are they acting within the
6:10
confines of the law? Oh,
6:12
they absolutely are. You
6:14
could look at it as an
6:14
invasion of drugs. And
6:16
this has happened for way
6:18
too many years. Way too
6:19
many. Tens of thousands of
6:20
lives have been lost. And
6:21
there's a new sheriff in
6:23
town if you don't want to,
6:24
if you want to live, don't
6:26
try to bring drugs into
6:27
the U.S. I like that.