Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

In the long-awaited birthright citizenship decision, the majority ruled that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, even if his parents are here temporarily or illegally. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts argues that birthright citizenship is a part of the Common Law. The key is Justice Coke’s decision in Calvin’s Case of 1608, recognized as authoritative in England and in British America. The Dred Scott case rejected this when it ruled that Scott was common-law property and not a citizen, and America rejected that decision in the war fought largely over the issue of slavery. If sovereign law doesn’t hold, being born there can bring no benefit from that law. No law, no citizenship. Roberts makes a clear argument and presents it ably. His defense of it against Justice Thomas’ dissent is not as able. This relatively short article allows only a brief look at the many pages of the Trump v. Barbara decision. As Roberts’ key argument is that birthright citizenship is based on Common Law and everything subsequent, such as the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, must be read in the light of its use in Common Law, the Common Law is where we will focus. Basing himself on Coke’s decision in Calvin, Roberts sets out the Common Law claim — anyone born under the sovereign protection of the King owes him allegiance. Roberts elides over the difference between a subject and a citizen. Justice Thomas attacks this elision. The feudal sense of allegiance due someone who enjoys sovereignty by reason of birth is alien to a republic in which the sovereignty belongs to the citizens. To be a citizen is to be invested with sovereign rights; to be a subject simply means one owes obedience to laws someone else has the right to make. As King Charles I said just before his execution, “A subject and a sovereign are clean different things.” As the king made clear, such liberties as the people enjoyed came only through his sufferance in guiding his subjects through his laws — not the unalienable rights asserted later in the Declaration of Independence as the basis of self-governance. The difference between subject and citizen has been bridged historically only by gelding the monarch politically. The last attempt of a monarch to revive political power, Queen Elizabeth’s decision acceding to PM Boris Johnson’s request to prorogue Parliament, was unceremoniously scuttled by a British court asserting powers their judiciary had not claimed since the days of Justice Coke. Coke failed, but his heirs are doing much better than the monarchs in wielding power in the British state. America, on the other hand, rejected the very idea that sovereignty belongs to royalty or nobles. At the same time, it proclaims fidelity to common law concepts of liberty and some kinship with the evolving British constitutional tradition. What Thomas is saying is that, while we maintain continuity with the English law tradition, we must not ignore the crucial differences over which we split. No kings! Power to the people! Roberts’ attempt to dismiss this fundamental difference weakens his case. There is also another line of argument. Grant Roberts’ reasoning, for the sake of argument, and say that Cokes’ Calvin ruling determines how we understand the Fourteenth Amendment and other relevant American law sources. As Roberts notes, Coke sets out some limitations to this birthright, which he acknowledges, such as ambassadors and the like who are here to represent another sovereignty. Coke also sets as exceptions such places where the king’s sovereignty is in name only, such as the claim of the British monarch to be the ruler of France. Coke ruled: Seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England. Furthermore: Any place within the King’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. That is, if some other power holds part of the realm, say, a castle, those born there would have no natural allegiance to the king, for his law does not hold there. And that is the core issue for Coke, for he calls this a natural law of God that the one who is by nature subject is bound by the sovereign’s law. Here, since the king has no power, the subject has no obligation to obey. There are places here where this applies in the U.S. Victor Davis Hanson has been talking much of the decline of California, where he still lives on land his grandfather owned. His area had been largely an area of immigrant farmers, who worked hard and thrived, loved their adopted home, treasured their shared community, and upheld its legal order. Nearly all those families have left, and their land is in tatters. Laws there are enforced only among the remnant of the original families. The rest ignore the web of laws governing zoning, trash disposal, construction, and traffic. Little attempt is made to make them. And most of them got here due to a studied refusal to enforce the immigration laws of this sovereign nation. Among the most irritating areas of the law’s unequal enforcement is taxes. A gigantic cash-only black market has developed in which the steep sales tax and other taxes are not enforced. Those left obeying the law are playing on an unequal playing field. Is this not Coke’s exception? The laws do not apply here. The sovereign, who in America is “We the People,” holds no effective sway. There is allegiance to the sovereign’s laws, so there are no rights from the sovereign. The freedoms under law have been lost, citizenship is meaningless. Thisfundamental issue lurks only in the background of the arguments in Trump v Barbara, it still looms large in the minds of many Americans. Is our entire sovereignty being gutted as the rule of law fails? How can we award citizenship’s shared sovereignty when the laws of that sovereignty do not hold? There is a long history of the Left seeking to take back power by surging in large numbers of people selected for their likelihood to support the Left’s cause. Books were written on this topic, such as The Emerging Democratic Majority and ⁠Diversity Explosion. The unprecedented abandonment of all but a pretense of legal control of immigration under Biden has resulted in the abandonment of wide swaths of America to being less than sovereign within its own borders. The Jewish law tradition has some insight on this situation. Jews have lived for much of their history under the sovereignty of other nations. Beginning from Jeremiah’s message that they were to seek the welfare of wherever they lived, they were and are explicitly bound by Jewish law to observe the civil laws of the lands where they live. There is a large exception to this rule: if the laws are enforced unequally, the sovereignty is no longer legitimate and is in effect just a gang of robbers. If one group of people are free to evade law and taxes and the others are not, God’s authority no longer lies with the putative authority. It has failed its role under God’s law and is illegitimate. This lawlessness as political policy undercuts Roberts’ argument. Natural law, as Coke rules this is, should manifest everywhere given the same circumstances, and that is what we see in Western Europe: whether in immigrant areas where police can only enter in a quasi-military role, and organized rape gangs targeting the native population have operated with impunity for many years. If sovereign law doesn’t hold, being born there can bring no benefit from that law. No law, no citizenship. Those who flout the sovereign law can’t be rewarded with the privileges of that very sovereignty. Ruling otherwise is a significant step towards civilizational suicide. This decision cannot be the last word. READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: The American Covenant I Recall My Father A Rabbi, a Priest, and a Minister  

It finally happened. After nearly four decades of dialogue, concessions, and peace-making efforts from the Vatican, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) was officially excommunicated on Thursday after explicitly, persistently rejecting the authority of the pope and the Second Vatican Council. I wrote a fairly detailed summary of the history of the conflict between the schismatic traditionalist sect and Rome last month, but a brief recap may be helpful. While it’s true that progressive priests likewise question the authority of the Church on particular issues…. [T]hey rarely challenge the authority of the Church openly, Following the Second Vatican Council, French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded and led the SSPX in rejecting several key teachings of the Council, thus rejecting the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church. As the long, sad history of fractures and fissures amongst Christians throughout the world has demonstrated, authority is kind of a big deal for the Catholic Church. The simmering conflict with Lefebvre came to a head in 1988, when the bishop openly defied Pope St. John Paul II and consecrated four new bishops for the SSPX. Both Lefebvre and the four men he consecrated were excommunicated — the gravest and strictest penalty the Church can impose. Later on, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications on the four priests who had been consecrated bishops in an effort to repair the relationship between the Vatican and the SSPX and bring the sect into full communion with the Church. These conciliatory efforts were — somewhat surprisingly, given his marked disdain for traditionalist Catholics — continued by Pope Francis. Nonetheless, the SSPX has refused to embrace the Church, preferring instead to sit outside in the cold, shivering, while those within the Church enjoy the warmth of the Truth that the Church has safeguarded throughout the centuries. While Lefebvre’s consecrations in 1988 were a novelty at the time, requiring a firm response from the Vatican, the SSPX of today knew exactly what the consequences would be and, even after decades of effort at reconciliation by the Vatican, went ahead with their petulant defiance. Can’t say they weren’t warned. Unlike the 1988 excommunications, however, the Vatican formally extended excommunications this time to all clerics of the SSPX and even to laity who continue to adhere to the SSPX following last week’s illicit consecrations. “From the time of Saint Paul VI up to the most recent talks, held recently at this Dicastery, the many attempts to bring the members of the movement begun by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre back into full communion with the Catholic Church have proved vain,” the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF, the Vatican’s doctrinal office, formerly known as the Holy Office) wrote in a formal pronunciation Thursday. “This situation has been further aggravated by the recent episcopal consecrations celebrated without pontifical mandate, against the will of the Holy Father, and in open violation of canon law.” “The sacred ministers belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics, and are subject to the excommunication prescribed by law,” the DDF explicated. (Internal citations omitted.) “As regards the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are to be considered schismatics and excommunicated.” This result is highly unfortunate, as it imperils the souls of those who adhere to the SSPX and the souls of those who do not understand the situation and (understandably) believe that the Vatican is punitively targeting traditionalists for the sake of targeting traditionalists, while dissident progressive prelates and priests are seemingly given carte blanche to promote same-sex relationships, female ordinations, the democratizing of the Church, and a host of other far-left ideologies antithetical to the perennial teachings of the Church. This is not a matter of traditionalism. The errors of the SSPX are no less serious than those of the progressives — and are arguably rooted in an even more obstinate spirit. While faithful Catholics may condemn the priests who celebrate LGBT “pride” Masses, the SSPX is just as full of pride. In the Catholic Church, authority matters. The authority of the Bishop of Rome is supreme, he is Christ’s Vicar on earth and the visible head of the Catholic Church. He is both bound and inspired by the Holy Ghost and his formal declarations on matters of faith and morals are infallible and binding. (Obviously, not everything that every pope says or does is correct or moral and not everything that every pope says is binding, but the Church holds that the Holy Ghost prevents the pontiff from using his office to formally teach error.) The papacy was established by Christ Himself, while personally present on earth, and is vested with His authority. “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven,” Our Lord said to Simon Peter, the first pope (Matthew 16:18-19). He further reiterated the authority of the Bishop of Rome. While all of the apostles were given authority, which the bishops of today inherit in their office, Peter was singled out for authority even over the rest. “Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs,” Christ said to Peter after His resurrection and Peter’s denial of even knowing Christ. “He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17). In this interaction, Christ restored Peter to his office and authority after his denial of Our Lord before the crucifixion, and further entrusted to him authority over the entirety of the Church, Christ’s “sheep,” placing Peter above the rest as chief shepherd. One of the Early Church Fathers, St. Cyprian of Carthage, clarified the role of the papacy and its significance for the Church. “Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair,” the Saint wrote in the third century. “If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” In rejecting the authority of the Second Vatican Council and openly, repeatedly defying the Holy Father, the SSPX has done exactly that which St. Cyprian warned not to: desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built. Consequently, the order and its adherents find themselves outside the Church. While it’s true that progressive priests likewise question the authority of the Church on particular issues, largely matters of sexual morality, their arguments are easily enough refuted. Furthermore, they rarely challenge the authority of the Church openly, but rather seek to subtly subvert that authority or else, as is more commonly the case in my years of careful observation, to use that authority to sanction particular sexual or political acts or ideologies. They have been threatened with schism, just as the SSPX has, but — unlike the SSPX — they have backed down at the last minute, preferring to remain inside the Church, begrudging and scheming, rather than following the SSPX out into the cold. READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: The Myth of Cursed Soil America’s Bishops ‘Turn A Blind Eye’ to Abuse of American Generosity Mass Deportations Are ‘The Christian Response’ to Mass Immigration

After a gambling scandal cratered his college career, Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby tried to skip the fallout and fast track his future to the NFL. The league promptly slammed the door. It rejected his supplemental draft application and canceled the draft entirely leaving Sorsby stuck on the sideline until at least 2027. The reason wasn’t complicated. Sorsby admitted to placing thousands of bets, including wagers involving his own team that is the mortal sin of sports. This resulted in the NCAA banning him for life. He fought it in court, briefly won a reprieve, then retreated under a wave of backlash and aimed for the NFL as a reset button. Rules and accountability are paramount, especially when the integrity of competition is at stake. The NFL blew Sorsby’s end around before the snap. In denying his petition, the NFL made its thinking clear: Sorsby failed to own up to his actions. His application glossed over key details, showed little accountability and did nothing to convince the league’s honchos that he understood, or would respect their rules on gambling. The NFL would be no redemption story for Sorsby. So, the NFL dug in and made it a goal-line stand On its merits, the NFL made the right call. Betting on your own team is not just another violation; it poisons the well. Every pass, every mistake, every outcome becomes suspect. Trust, the currency of any sporting event, evaporates.  Excuses do not suffice nor erase responsibility. Consequences are part of the game, too. And yet, the reaction says plenty about the uneasy moment contemporary sports finds itself in. Granted, the NFL is taking a hard stance here but the league continues to cash in on gambling. Pregame shows push odds. Broadcasts treat betting lines like weather reports. Stadiums double as billboards for sports books. The NFL is not just adjacent to gambling; it has partnered with it. That is where the NFL’s hypocrisy runs out of bounds. The league profits from the culture it punishes. Fans know how glaring the contradiction is. They also don’t miss the inconsistency elsewhere. Gambling violations draw swift, unforgiving discipline, while other off-field misconducts are handled with far more flexibility. The message can feel selective, even if the rule itself isn’t. Then there is the cynicism baked into the system. Plenty believe talent eventually wins out and that some desperate NFL franchise will convince itself that the risk is worth it. It’s not a defense of Sorsby so much as an indictment of how often teams prioritize ability over judgment. Still, this decision lands differently for one reason: the NFL didn’t hedge. It didn’t stall, soften, or spin. It simply said no. Sorsby’s future is now uncertain, his career in limbo by his own choices. Rules and accountability are paramount, especially when the integrity of competition is at stake. However, skepticism still looms large regarding the institutions enforcing those rules. The NFL’s decision may be widely seen as correct, but it also serves as a reminder of the contradictions embedded in modern sports where moral lines are drawn even as financial incentives continue to blur them. READ MORE from Greg Maresca: Where Art Rekindles Faith The Missed Opportunity of the Semiquincentennial Minute Young Washington: No Cherry Tree Required