Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Exhibits Himself Morever in His Own Publicly Stated Words -- in Opposition to the US Supreme Court's Firm Majority Ruling in Acknowledgement and Affirmation of the US Constitution's Explicitly Worded and Prescribed Birthright USA Citizenship Law -- To Be Unsuitable for Membership in the US Judiciary System Entirely
I read a news article on the morning of 06-30-2026 quoting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as saying to the effect that the Supreme Court's 6 to 3 ruling upholding birthright citizenship was wrong because it devalues [US] citizenship, online click-on links, https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5947513-birthright-citizenship-clarence-thomas-dissent/ , https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/supreme-court-14th-amendment-birthright-citizenship-clarence-thomas-b3006092.html . The Supreme Court's role, duty and mission is to cite and uphold federal constitutional law first and foremost and not make value judgments about it and rulings that contradict, deviate from or amend it. Birthright citizenship is unambiguously and clearly stated and prescribed in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the USA. The courts do not have any legislative authority and it is unlawful and legally illegitimate for any court of the USA to render a judicial ruling modifying, overruling or contravening in whole or part any law of the US Constitution. Arguments, justifications or tactics to do such things are straightforwardly and plainly dishonest and manipulative judicial guile, sophistry and finagling to circumvent, reconstruct and re-write differently the already explicated textual law as it is stated in writing in its own words or language, though sometimes complexly in related but separated parts of the US Constitution truly requiring judicial review and reconciliation. The personal views and sentiments of the justices of the courts have no legitimate applicability in their judicial rulings, aka their judicial decisions. He needs to exit the judiciary, as do any judges of the courts who proffer judgments based on their or others' rationale, testimony or evidence that is extraneous, external or contradictory to the textually stated law. The US Constitution and its laws can only be changed by the amendment process of the US Constitution prescribed by and in the US Constitution. The bicameral US Congress must adhere to this process in order to make a change in the US Constitution and cannot legally make a congressional statutory law to make a change to it, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-1/ALDE_00000507/?s__cf_chl_f_tk=DoMb.8Z48.zcmowipi6AM_RhfryaDq8_OeZPnB6M2Ic-1782995610-1.0.1.1-DUGMIeaBaIdh7026Eg9RZ4VZa50ah5_1FNRhtBZwxX4.
A theoretical judicial ruling holding that it is in compliance with the first law of the First Amendment of the US Constitution for there to be government-mandated or designated tax support of Christian religions or a certain Christian religion or set of them or of any religion or all religions, and for government mandating, authorizing or affirmatively sanctioning their prosletizing and pressuring for the imposition of their practices and rituals, etc., in government institutions and on government facilities or premises, or on all or any part of US society, as well as for population submission to these, or for the legistated designation of a particular religion or set of religions as the official religion of the USA, based on the argument and rationale, extraneous and irrelevant to the textual language of that amendment, that because the majority of the founders of the USA and framers of the US Constitution were Christians, would be in condradiction to and in violation of that first law of First Amendment which states "Congress (by prescription of the US Constitution, the exclusive legislative, law-making branch of the federal government) shall make no law respecting 'an' establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." [civilian and personal, voluntarily collective or individual, free exercise of religion (that is not selected, supported, promoted, sponsored, encouraged, compelled or legislated or instituted or institutionalized by government), or freedom from religion, that does not infringe on others' religions or lack of religion or their other equal-protection-of-the-law citizenship rights and whatever their other legal rights], which semantically and logically equates to the separation of church and state or the separation of religion, and religiosity, and state and from the state, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ , as did, to whom it may concern, the dictum of Christianity's founder Jesus in his words to the effect of "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's." -- You got that y'all money-and-power greedy and gluttonous and money-and-power grubbing, tax-shirking and parasitizing rich folks and fake, liar and bigoted religious preachers and shuckster leaders?
See below the excerpt of the US Constitutional right-of-US-citizenship-by-birth law of, prescribed in, the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution:
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
- Amdt14.1 Overview of Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection and Rights of Citizens
- Amdt14.2 State Action Doctrine
Section 1 Rights
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
