Nothing says conundrum quite like the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the “plain text meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.” It was quite interesting as they issued their ruling supporting birthright citizenship on the same day they granted certiorari to two assault weapon ban cases. Needless to say, the gun rights supporters have been waiting a long time for the court to act on this issue. Ever since the Bruen decision, the court has been slow to reinforce its ruling. There have been some recent victories; however, many millions of Americans are living in states imposing a plainly unconstitutional gun ban, and the court has been slow to act. Conservatives were a little less than enthused about the court’s ruling concerning the Fourteenth Amendment, and some are even calling for a constitutional amendment to change it. Here is where the conundrum comes in. The conservative gun rights supporters, of which I am one, would be outraged if the court went against its “plain text meaning of the amendment,” which was established in Bruen. In other words, if a law goes against the plain text meaning, it is the burden of the government to justify its law based on text, history, and tradition. There is nothing plainer and easier to understand than “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.” While the Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t written until the Reconstruction era to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves, judicial history and tradition have shown that the text has applied to all people coming into the country. To put it simply, if the amendment were put to the standards set in Bruen, aside from the fact that it wasn’t written until Reconstruction, it would pass the text, history, and tradition standard, whether we like it or not.

This, in my opinion, is a classic example of what Saul Alinsky meant when he said, “Use their rules against them; they can no longer obey their own rules than Christians can obey Christianity.” The left argues that the Second Amendment is often taken out of context and was never intended for ordinary people to own the types of weapons we have access to today. They also argue the founders would have never envisioned the advancements of firearm technology, which, of course, is bull. Senator Rand Paul has made the same argument towards the Fourteenth Amendment ruling as well, saying that the founders would have never envisioned it would be interpreted the way it is. It was only intended to free the slaves. It doesn’t say that, though, does it? Justice Kavanaugh, despite opining that Trump’s immigration couldn’t stand, wrote in a separate opinion that Congress can change the law that governs immigration and birthright citizenship, as the language that governs the amendment’s ruling is written in plain legislation in 1940, and again in 1952. His argument is that because it was written in plain legislation, it can be changed in plain legislation without a constitutional amendment process.

Is that right, though? Perhaps it is; however, there have been many laws passed through simple legislative processes that govern the Second Amendment that are unconstitutional. The NFA, for example, clearly violates the Second Amendment’s plain text meaning, yet there it is. Conservatives argue, and rightfully so, that the NFA is a violation of the right to keep and bear arms. What I am saying is if we are going to use the plain text meaning for one amendment, that rule has to apply to all of them; otherwise, the floodgates open and they all become susceptible to change through simple legislative measures.

I am speaking to this from the perspective of understanding Alinsky-like tactics. It is highly possible they want you to argue in favor of changing the amendment through legislation because once you do, that process applies to all amendments. Some people will suggest that if we don’t do something, we will be handing our country over to foreigners. Maybe so, but that happened before most of us were born with the Immigration Reform Act of 1965. For a deeper understanding, you should read The Path to National Suicide. In essence, immigration to the United States became a human rights issue with legislatures opening the door to immigrants from the third world for the first time. As it stands right now, white people are facing the prospect of being a minority in this country by 2050. In all honesty, that shouldn’t matter, as all people coming here should be assimilating in order to preserve a culture of individual liberty. However, that isn’t happening.

Do I believe that citizenship should be granted to every single person, regardless of what their parents’ status is? No, of course not. The conundrum, however, is that the Amendment doesn’t say “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, except for such and such situations.” Just as the Second Amendment doesn’t say “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except in this or that situation, or these types of guns.” The plain text meaning of each amendment is self-evident, and if conservatives are going to argue it isn’t for the Fourteenth, then they have to expect that same argument to be made against the Second. That is what I am saying.

If you enjoyed this article, be sure to look out for my latest book, The Psychology of Persuasive Propaganda: The Things You Should Know. In the meantime, you can check out –

Without a Shot Indeed: Inducing Compliance to Tyranny Through Conditioning and Persuasion.

and A Critical Look at CRT in Education, Research and Social Policy

Article posted with permission from David Risselada