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

Youtube transcript:
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.