Constitutional Scholar/Attorney/Host Mark Levin: There is NO Birthright Citizenship

Constitutional Scholar/Attorney/Host Mark Levin: There is NO Birthright Citizenship" width="371" height="194" class="align-center"/>
by Jeff Dunetz

{} ~ Mark Levin is more than a talk radio star, he is a successful attorney who was the chief of staff to President Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese and a Constitutional scholar who has written six books (by my count) on Constitutional issues. Levin explains that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship on anyone born inside our borders. He argues that says there is no such constitutional rule.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution which lays out the powers of Congress says.
  • “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States (…)To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States…” 
Levin also explained how those who crafted the original amendment felt about what they were doing with the 14th Amendment:
  • “‘This will not of course include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens … but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship.’ … Is it not plain English? Is he not as clear as can be that it does not include aliens, it does not include foreigners. … The republican basis for citizenship is consent! Consent of the country! You can’t self-immigrate. You can’t claim jurisdiction because you happen to walk into the United States.”
  • “What is the bottom line here? Let’s number this: They wanted to make certain that former slaves would be treated as citizens of the United States, because certain states were still resistant. … They exempted Indians, because Indians still, certainly back then, were often considered citizens of particular tribes. But these actually were very forward-looking individuals. They specifically excluded aliens and foreigners.
”Three years ago, “the Great One” spoke about the same issue with Sean Hannity on FNC. Levin told Hannity that the 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the US.

The radio talker said that those claiming that the Constitution allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong. Levin said that Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution grants absolute power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Levin went on to explain that means that only Congress — not a president or the courts — has the power to regulate immigration.

“Of course Trump is right and Cruz is right and Sessions is right. They’re all right,” Levin said of those claiming then that birthright citizenship does not exist.
  • “If you want a policy of open borders, that anybody born here should become a United States citizen, you amend the Constitution,” Levin said. “We don’t have to amend the Constitution. It says what we say it says. By statute, going forward, prospectively, Congress can in fact say … ‘No, you cannot make children of illegal aliens American citizens automatically.’”

Views: 80

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

He is really a Constitutional Scholar?, well I just thought he had a big mouth...:)


There is no question that he is a constitutional scholar.....

 I did watch a video about him talking about the Declaration of Independence, he really did not impress me, a matter a fact he did not share all the truth.


Mark Levin is a Lawyer and Constitutional scholar ... a well accomplished and learned scholar of the law.  He is respected by all major political parties and his comments should be taken as true.. unless one has specific CREDIBLE sources to discount them.  

Fringe conspiratorial groups are not credible sources unless they provide acceptable evidence ... they must be discounted in their views as they are often distorted by their ideology and bias. 

Posting volumes of items that are unrelated or tangently associated with the arguments at hand add little value to clarifying or settleing disputed information... Please site references and links to documents that are cogent and relative to the disputed matter... so we may all be better informed. 

If ya say so, I was not impressed, I reviewed a video chat about the Declaration of Independence, him and his guest did not even come close to sharing the truth.

 Now personally I do not care what he has to say, he failed to stop the elite, so if he has all of this going on for him, why are the elite more afraid of us Red Necks?



Well informed and balanced individuals will always entertain the cogent views of others... including those they don't agree with.  Dismissing mainstream views on Constitutional law has created the mess we are in today.  Mark Levin has a good grasp on Constitutional Law and the rights of individuals, along with the chains the Constitution places on the Federal Government. 

Really, The Federal Reserve is still in our face, so if he is a well accomplished and learned scholar of the law.
He must have a lot of the Federal Notes in his hip pocket.

There you go again... off on some tangental trip...this blog is about Birthright Citizenship ... and Constitutional law regarding its mandates... not the Federal Reserve.

Federal Reserve is now in the topic, like da!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Federal Reserve is still in our face, so if he, (Mark Levin ) is a well accomplished and learned scholar of the law.
He must have a lot of the Federal Notes in his hip pocket.

Like da... what topic... the Fed is our Central Bank... what are you suggesting? Not many here support a Fed as it is unconstitutional... the US Treasury and Congress are supposed to manage our money system... assigning it to a semi-private CENTRAL BANK is not constitutional.  We need to phase out the Fed... so what?  We need to phase out lots of unconstitutional policy and programs.  Be more specific... on your point.

You missed the memo Ronald,
Them nifty people of the Fed, admitted in a video, The Federal Reserve Banking System belongs to the Jewish Rothschild Family,
Its all very Jewish you know. All of them...

PS, what people are appointed to the Federal Reserve, its their last names and their next of kin, just over the top of how they gained control of the Fed and then America's economy.




Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Goodbye 2020: Clinton Ordered By Federal Judge To Submit To Questioning

( – Just when Hillary Clinton began hinting that she’s ready to run again in 2020, she has been ordered by a federal judge to submit to questioning about the use of her private email server to convey classified documents during her time as Secretary of State.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan made the order as part of a lawsuit from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

“Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions — including key q’s about the setting up of her email system,” wrote Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a tweet following the ruling.

Judicial Watch 🔎 @JudicialWatch

BREAKING: Judicial Watch announced today that, following JW's court battle, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that Hillary Clinton must answer – under oath – two additional questions on her controversial email system within 30 days.

Judicial Watch: Federal Court Ordered Hillary Clinton to Answer Additional Email Questions Under...

 (Washington, DC) –Judicial Watch announced today that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that within 30 days Hillary Clinton must answer under oath two additional questions about her...
Tom Fitton  @TomFitton

Breaking: Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions -- including key q's about the setting up of her email system. Court denied our request to unseal vid depositions of Clinton aides. Great work by Michael Bekesha!

As a statement from Judicial Watch explains, the ruling is the latest development in the group’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, which they began to discover why former deputy chief of staff to Mrs. Clinton, Huma Abedin, was allowed to work at the State Department while also engaged in “outside employment.”

Clinton now has 30 days to answer two key questions from a list of 25 questions composed by Judicial Watch.

The questions the judge selected are:

1) “Describe the creation of the system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.”

During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

This new development is huge because it means that the two critical scandals from Clinton’s time in the State Department, her private email server and the Benghazi attacks, are facing fresh scrutiny in both the legal system and the court of public opinion.

And while Clinton likely had little chance of any run in 2020, this makes it even less likely she will stand even a shred of a chance.

We’ve have got to hope and pray that at long last, this leads to the long overdue criminal charges we’ve all been waiting to see.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service