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

Gotham
In The News

At Gotham Government Relations, we take pride in staying ahead of the curve when it comes to policy developments and current events that impact our esteemed clientele and team members. "Gotham In The News" is your go-to page for comprehensive coverage of news articles and videos that directly pertain to our areas of expertise.

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.