Birthright Panic: You Can’t Defend Rights With Vibes

The Supreme Court did not end birthright citizenship. They just called bullshit on how you tried to defend it. In this episode of PrecisionCycle, Enrique takes a scalpel to the June 27, 2025 Trump v. CASA, Inc. ruling and explains why the decision is a rebuke of lazy lawyering and partisan theatrics—not a death knell for the 14th Amendment. Whether you're a panicked liberal or a smug conservative, this episode brings you back to Earth with a real constitutional education. Stop playing politics with people’s lives—and start getting serious about building structural, enforceable rights. elevate.epo

Transcript

0:00

The Supreme Court did not end birthright citizenship. They just called bullshit on the way you tried to defend it. This ruling isn't about Trump, it's about you. It's about the sloppy theatrical way in which both sides have politicized immigration and citizenship, both. Sides are treating the Constitution like a joke because in today's modern politics, everything's a stage and it's not any actual structure. And this is what we're gonna talk about today in today's precision cycle, is the Supreme Court ruling that just got released this afternoon in a 63 decision. The Supreme Court decided to, fine with Trump's executive order against Casa. in question was birthright citizenship. This case explicitly does not end that, nor does it even suggest that birthright citizenship should be ended through the stroke of a pen by one executive. Rather, it is a call for Democrats and Republicans alike to build coalitions, pressure Congress to put actual laws on the books that then becomes enforceable. this is another example of the justice system bringing back the overreach of executive overreach and the inaction of a Do Nothing Congress. And what the justices here are telling us is that this topic is too important to cut corners. And to go by the ways of trying to appease the masses rather than actually putting together legal arguments that are sound and based in actual fact on today's precision cycle, we will be shifting a bit, talking some politics, talking some judicial decisions, and how it impacts birthright citizenship. So that we can hopefully cut through the noise of mainstream media, which is trying to get you riled up for clicks, for views, and so you can pick a side because when you do that, there's money to be made. So I hope you stick around for this fresh, unique, psychological perspective on Trump v Casa, and the Supreme Court's decision. On today's Precision Cycle, brought to you by Elevate Dot epo, I'm Enrique. Let's open it up. So we're gonna be the grownups in the room having a conversation. And I am hoping to stay away from generalities that M-S-N-B-C-C-N-N, Fox News, all these other organizations are trying to get you to respond to, because that's the business model to get clicks. That's essentially the world we live in today's episode, Is intended to help you understand, cut through this decision, hopefully strip away some of the anxiety, some people may have about it contrary to what a lot of people on both sides are screaming about and trying to rabble rouse, this does not end birthright citizenship. This was not a rebuke of that mechanism. That has been on the books for years and since the 14th Amendment, it's not, they're not upholding Trump's right to get rid of the 14th Amendment for various specific use cases. Now, you might be asking what are my qualifications to even be speaking on this. I'm a psychologist and I present myself as a psychologist and I've presented myself as one for a while now. The reality is, yes, I am a psychologist. But before I was a psychologist, I was a political science major in college with a specialty that focused primarily on the judicial system. So my education background is that of understanding from a historical context, how the judiciary is structured, and how the judiciary has come to shape modern civil rights that we live with in 2025. I didn't go to law school, so I'm not here to talk about torts. I'm not here to talk about specific laws on the books. I'm not here to give interpretations to, legal aspects, which aren't my purview, and I'm not a professional in that area, and certainly not giving any sort of political legal advice. So my background is from that perspective, and hopefully we can have this conversation. without it devolving into something else, because I don't wanna present this as some kind of partisan issue. I just wanna present the facts and what happened today and make sure that we're all aligned on the same page of what exactly the nine justices are telling us. So let's break down the case and what actually happened. Trump v Casa. Incorporated, number 2 4 8 8 8 4 2025. Challenged Trump Executive Order fourteen one six zero, which essentially denies birthright citizenship for kids born in the United States under two very narrows cases. Mothers who are here undocumented fathers that are not a citizen or a green card holder. So essentially two people come, they don't have a visa, they don't have any type of legal status, have a child, and the child is born in the United States. what President Trump is trying to say is moving forward from this point that is no longer a valid form or path to citizenship. The second. Narrow group that this case focuses on, are mothers here temporarily, either through student , visas, and the same deal with the father. So again, people here on visas, they overstay they have kids, and the kids become automatic citizens that has been the way that things have operated for a really long time. What it's saying is that Trump is challenging the 14th Amendment and the understanding that being born in the United States territory to individuals who are not documented, don't have jurisdiction, and thus that child cannot be legally recognized as a US citizen because. There is no jurisdiction with that child, meaning both of his parents don't have any rights under the law to be in the United States. Thus, the United States cannot be a custodian of that child. essentially saying that the country of origin would be the jurisdiction and that child would have to go back and go through the immigration process to become a US citizen once they are recognized as a citizen in their country. The lower courts had essentially blocked the executive order with universal injunctions, that's a key point here in this case, because many courts have sought to apply broad ruling across different, plaintiffs. To create change at the class level. with Brown V Board of Education, a very important legal precedent in this country. The reason that would differ is because that was challenging a law of the land, which was separate but equal, which applied to a vast swath of individuals that were covered In that policy, what this policy is doing is only applying to a very narrow subset of people who are seeking citizenship. that sort of class. Immediately doesn't really apply because it's not a universal blanket. We're ending all birthright citizenship. we're only ending it under these very specific circumstances. what happened was that when this case was brought forward, the plaintiffs were not a class, they were just a collection of individuals organizations and some state agencies that had essentially put themselves together into, this lawsuit. But ultimately it didn't go through what many people would argue would be the big issue here. And so the lower courts issued universal injunctions blocking the law nationwide. What the Supreme Court just said however, is that, no, you can't do that. Unless it's properly structured. What that means is, this isn't about the 14th amendment this is about not building a case properly, and it's about procedure standing and judicial overreach. let's move on to some of the key citations here and hopefully this will bring it together. The 14th Amendment clearly states, all persons born in the US and subject to jurisdiction thereof are US citizens very plainly. And that was after the Civil War. that was part of the reconstruction amendments, which. We're intended to, bring African Americans into the country as proper citizens having been born here in the United States, regardless of how they arrived. or the lineage what the family history looked like. the fact that they were here and were now free slaves meant that they were citizens of the United States under the 14th Amendment, and that the. States themselves could not discriminate against them. because all the rights and privileges of the Constitution and the, bill of Rights were then applicable, both at the federal and with the 14th Amendment at the state level, we look further analysis. Grupo Mexicano versus Alliance Bond Fund, 5 27 US three oh 8,000 1999. And what that essentially was the limitations of equitable relief specifically stating that federal courts equitable powers are generally limited to those that existed at the time of the Judiciary Act of 1789. this supports the argument that Universal injunctions, a more recent development, Might exceed traditional equitable powers, meaning it might be too much. The lower courts might have added things that the framers of the Constitution and early versions of Congress did not necessarily prove of. We could have our arguments about whether, the Constitution is a living document, but you have to go with what's on the books and on the books, that particular precedent set forward that sometimes lower courts are a little extra and need to operate within the confines of the Constitution. Califano v Yamasaki, 44 42, US 6 82 19 79, that one often cited in discussions about the scope of injunctions, emphasizing that they should be no broader than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs. the scope of injunctions, decisions need to be, within the confines of the Constitution. They have to be limited to what is necessary for relief for those plaintiffs. Frothingham v. Van Mellon 2 62 US 4 47 19 23. This case is a foundational ruling on taxpayer standing. Establishing that one cannot sue based on general grievance shared with the public implicates state organizations and non-governmental organizations which attached themselves to this group of plaintiffs, which were mothers who were pregnant, who were seeking to challenge that executive order frothingham, essentially says that. you need to have standing, some wrongs had to have happened to you to bring a matter before the court. those organizations and states had not provided any real illustration of any type of harm done to them. Meaning they were not coming in a class action suit. They had not formed that. What they were doing was essentially just backing these group of women who themselves had not formulated a class action suit. Rather, were just coming in as a singular plaintiff. Of course we have Brown V. Board of Education, which was, strategically coordinated, That is an example of a class action system working its way through the courts. through a procedure and then achieving a result, applicable to the entire class. That is the whole purpose of a class action. A class of people are bringing together a grievance and then that decision is going to affect the entire class for Brown V Board of Education. That was the NAACP who came forward with the class statement that African Americans were being discriminated against. and the court needed to provide some relief in order for this class to achieve relief. This is a ruling about boundaries. Just like therapy law doesn't work when people skip process and demand miracles, Historical liberals, Will have you believe that this ends birthright citizenship. It doesn't. If you don't protect it properly, it's gonna be taken away. And for delusional conservatives who are here championing some kind of big win, you didn't win anything, your guy tried to issue a memo, not a law, and you're celebrating paperwork. Ultimately, both sides are using this to raise money They're using it to further divide people and create narrative war, not legal precedent. That's what this hysteria in the media right now is achieving. if you want to protect the constitutional right, you need to do four things. Okay, and this is the four pillars of structural rights. And again, this is like college stuff. One, you have to litigate it properly, right? Real plaintiffs, real standing, real harm. If those states and organizations had harm committed to them, then they would have filed paperwork to present themselves as a class rather than individual plaintiffs. Two, organize your case show commonality, right? That was never achieved. Three, codify Congress past statutes. Don't rely on vibes, right? This is what we're left with. We're left with people challenging the whims of administration because Congress is inaction to actually put laws on the books. And we're seeing this with immigration. We're seeing this now with this particular topic. The reason that these things topics for discussion. And debate is because Congress continues to be a do nothing Congress that does not have the best interests of the people. They are only there to collect paychecks from themselves. They're only there to collect money from lobbyists Their interests are not in advancing any type of real change. In America. The status quo is the name of the game because that's where the money is, This is the four pillars of this structural rights here that we're looking at. And so we look at a comparison to something else that was in the news recently. Roe v. Wade, right? Roe fell because it was built on judicial hallucination, not constitutional muscle. Casa would've done the same thing to Scotus. If SCOTUS let it slide, it would've made this ruling hollow because there would've been a lot of points in it where people could challenge it. And that actually protects everyone left or right because it forces people to go back and go through the right channels. To present their case and show harm appropriately. Create a class system that comes into this and then is able to have this universal ruling applied to the class. that's all the court is saying in this ruling is that you didn't bring us a case that is. Challenging birthright citizenship. You brought us a case that is challenging the way you want to respond to a law or an executive order memo that's on the books. That's not the way the court operates. If you want real change and if you want us to actually rule on something, you need to come correct. Going through the proper channels and ensuring that all those components are in place so that when we rule on it. We can then attach the class status to it. Rather, you're asking us essentially to say, we're gonna rule for one person and then have it only apply to that particular person. And if we go back to legal precedent, this is what Bush V Gore was about, whatever your stance is on that case. That was a unique. Case in which the plaintiffs and the defendants were singular individuals and thus that ruling only applies to George Bush and Al Gore. This would've been the same thing. Where had the court decided, yes, we agree with you. What they're saying is these particular people would be the only people subject to that ruling. Thus, if you fall into that . Class. It's not automatic. You have to come and present your case as well. That's what the court is essentially saying. what they did was say, no, at the lower court, you don't have the power because Congress never gave you that power to impose your own interpretation of the Constitution and thus create a blanket class when nobody ever came and asked for it. That's essentially what the Supreme Court decision is saying. the court is issuing an order which says, get this soft nonsense outta here. It didn't follow the proper channels. when you bring it back, having gone the right and appropriate route, then we will sit down and have that bigger conversation about whether or not it's even constitutional, which on its face is not. But that's the thing. The court is not saying that right now because the court is essentially saying you need to go back and go through a process. this is something any other company or organization would tell you is the case for anything, right? If you get in a car accident, you can't just go and say, I have this much amount of money that you need to give me. There's a process if you go through any other type of. situation where you are the victim of some harm. You cannot simply just, expect to have a ruling. You have to go through the proper channels. and so we have to just stop crying on M-S-N-B-C from the left perspective. we need to actually really get serious as Democrats on the left, by pressuring our representatives to codify birthright citizenship under federal statute, because just like abortion, it's being left to interpretation. And when you do that, there's all this ability to chip away until there's nothing left, and it's practically just a hollow shell of itself. Abortion would not be an issue if there was a vote on the floor. They passed it in the Senate and that became the law because the president's job is to go to Congress and have them say, these are the laws on the books. We need you to enforce it. that would be something the judicial system would not be able to overturn, because once Congress has passed it as law. And it is not outside of the Constitution. They do not have any standing to challenge it. This is the reason why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has not been challenged for so long because it is law on the books. It's codified and barring the Senate and Congress going back and rescinding that Civil Rights Act. with another one that nullifies it and limits it. It's on the books and thus it's untouchable for conservatives. You also need to end the shit. Because. If you think an executive order is more powerful than the 14th amendment, you're as constitutional illiterate as your grifter influencers, both sides, are guilty of that. when Obama talks about how it's within his purview to go to Congress and say, okay, I recognize the laws on the books, but I don't have the manpower to actually, prosecute all these cases and thus I'm going to defer action on them. That's totally appropriate when he starts to outline what the forward action actually looks like. And then there's that, there's other sort of sub mechanism. that's inappropriate because that's the same thing that Trump just did. That's an executive order. DACA is an executive order, which lives in some legal , and thus we see why ice agents are currently terrorizing the streets of our cities, And Biden didn't make it a big enough issue to get Congress to act. Maybe you can blame the fact that Congress is so divided, but this is the point of politics. The point of politics is to have differing opinions come together and make consensus. They can unanimously agree on certain other laws, but when it comes to other ones they for some reason are unable to find the votes. that's not something a president can change. That's not something the judiciary can change. That's something that only Congress can change. And how does Congress change by you getting active and going out there and building coalition and actually working to put into Congress people that can do the job and not just collect money? Because we all have our favorites, politics has become this side versus that side. this horrible thing just happened and Nancy Pelosi is asking me for some money Donald Trump is asking for money. That's what politics has become. It's become a grift on suckers who are just blanketly giving money to these entities to continue fighting these battles, which are really meaningless because they don't have any teeth as this Supreme Court case has just told us. And so when we look at the actual court decision here, all the court's saying is get your shit together before you bring this topic, before us. As somebody that again benefited from birthright citizenship. I'm actually good with the fact that this decision was made, not because I wanna get rid of The pathway to citizenship for people who did it the way that I did it. I wanna do it. So they can't pull holes in it so that it does go the proper route and becomes ironclad. That's what I'd like to see, and we see this with the three justices who dissented the three liberals on the court, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown Jackson. I. dissented, not out of some procedural aspect, but because they wanted to give a blueprint to these plaintiffs so they can go back and actually go the proper routes to bring this claim before the court, because this is a claim that deserves to be debated. At the Supreme Court level, and if it does get debated at the Supreme Court level and they are able to frame it in a way where all the 14th Amendment protections are in place and it doesn't step outside of any precedent, then it will become the law of the land. And that's the thing, the law isn't something that's up for just the whims of people in power. The reason that. Donald Trump comes in and does it, is because that's what every president has tried to do for years. Come in place executive orders and try to overstep the limits of their branch of government. the court here is not necessarily saying, yeah, you're a king and you could do what you want. No, they're not saying that at all. What they're saying is challenge it the appropriate way. go the appropriate route. If you have a claim, go the proper steps and don't just come at us with something you pulled outta thin air, because this is a topic that deserves the proper backbone of process. And just like governments have to give due process to citizens also have to follow due process when they're suing the government. It works both ways, those plaintiffs did not come and sue the government the appropriate way. my freshman year in college, the professor was saying, you have the right to sue the US Postal Service, but you can't just sue 'em because one particular thing might have happened and whatever you feel, you felt the harm because maybe they didn't deliver your mail on time, or because maybe they lost a piece of mail, he can't sue them for that. But if the mailman runs you over with his truck, you could absolutely sue him. Yeah, that's what they're saying is that you can't come to us because you're missing a piece of mail. You need to come to us because the mailman actually ran you over. As unfortunate as that is, find me a bunch of other people who have been run over by Mailman as well. So that then you guys can all get together as a class of people who got run over by Mailmen and then we can pass this law that says, mailmen are not allowed to run over people because this is what's gonna happen. That's what they're really saying if you wanna sue the government, there's a way to do it. the way that Casa Inc did it was not appropriate. Casa Inc is doing it is actually cheapening. It's claim because it's deliberately not going the proper routes to ensure that this decision is made for the class of people. It's trying to protect those people without documents or the people that are overstepped the visas. And those people deserve to have that process brought to the court in an appropriate manner. They may have jumped the line because it was something that needed to be , politically expediated. But that's not necessarily the law's problem. The wheels of justice move as they move. But the case itself and the entities have to follow the proper procedures to bring this matter before the court. the Twitter cost players, the people who are out here trying to just get clicks and views, they're trying to keep feeding this machine and stoke this animosity when in reality this is a very clear case about process, and it's not about the 14th amendment. There's nothing in it that is immediately stripping away birthright, citizenship. All it's saying is. We didn't like the way you brought it before the court because you didn't follow the rules. You didn't follow the right steps. That's all it's saying. And so real constitution protection looks like a proper action. hopefully, as I've broken that down, you guys have understood that this case isn't about the politics, that it's all wrapped around. No one's taken away your birthright citizenship right now. No one is challenging that We are still Americans. People born in this country will continue to be citizens. And really this is just another signal of the Supreme Court saying, Congress, do your job. Congress will work 12 days in July and zero days in August before they come back for a winter, portion, which will probably be cut short because we are going into, mid cycle elections next year. And so the reality is that we're strapped with a Congress that is further divided and full of people who are not qualified to be Congress. People like Marjorie Taylor Greene. But I would also argue that jazz b Crockett isn't appropriate nor qualified to be in Congress. this is a call for Americans. That are concerned about this topic, to go and actually call their Congress people and pressure them to put a vote on the floor, bring a bill, even if Trump is going to veto it, this tells you what the elections in this mid cycle election season is. Whether or not you wanna make it a referendum on all the stupid crap that you've seen these past six, seven months and actually wanna bring Donald Trump to justice. Because here's the thing, if you go out and vote for, Democrats or Republicans who also find Trump atrocious, and you put enough of them in power, and seat those people come. January of 2027, a proper impeachment will be filed in Congress and proper votes will be. Brought down then you will see that overturning of what's happening with Trump. You will see an actual check on Trump's power. Up until that happens, he's gonna test limits as much as any narcissist is gonna test limits because there are no boundaries. And that's the thing we need to understand here, is that Congress has failed us in establishing boundaries. And until Congress decides it's gonna get its act together and exercise its power, rather than be a rubber stamp for whatever president happens to hold the white house, this will never change. So as citizens, we need to activate our voices, activate our power, and make sure that we're holding our leaders accountable. And that we're not revering them like they're some kind of a God because they're on TV all the time. Adam Schiff is not someone you should look at as a celebrity. Adam Schiff is a politician. There's no reason why he should be a millionaire at this point, having made millions from his stint in Congress. Same thing with Ted Li. Same thing with. Marco Rubio. I'm highly critical of Democrats because I'm a Democrat. I was a Democrat and I'm independent now. what I've seen is that both sides, when it comes to being in it for the money, seem to only want to be in it for the money. until we change, we're gonna have the Heritage Foundations, the Federalist Societies, Alec, the Project 2025 Leonard Leo, and his Dark Money Spider Web. We're gonna have them dictating politics and keep pushing these agendas until Congress decides it's gonna actually act and exercise power, we will continually have these. Over reaches because here's the truth. Brown v Board of Education, the Supreme Court did take a moral stand. Earl Warren, took a moral stand and then it was codified by Congress with the Civil Rights Act, of 1964 that locked it into law and that made it stick. It's the law, the land, and it's here to stay and nobody can mess with it. You want something done with regards to this topic? Do the exact same thing. Get together a class of people, meet all those legal criteria. Have it applied to that class of people who are seeking relief, and then get Congress to pass a law that says, birthright, citizenship means this. And then it will be the law of the land, and nobody will come and mess with it. and that's really the takeaway from today's news. Not so much that birthright citizenship is ending and that we're gonna start kicking people out and stripping them of citizenship. And that people born here in the United States today, under certain cases, are not gonna be citizens. That is not what today's ruling is about. Today's ruling is about did the lower court overreach? and yes it did, because the. Laws on the books do not support the court's action of making a universal dismissal of all of that Trump memorandum. until that gets rectified, we're gonna keep having these fights. hopefully with that, I have been able to break down this issue, give you some reassurance that. this is an ending right now, but hopefully give you the insight that says, you need to start fighting. If this is important for you. you can't just tweet and retweet and like stuff on social media. You have to actually go out, get involved, build coalitions, build consensus, and come together to create some kind of smart policy. And I know that's something that is very sort of wishful thinking in 2025. But that's the way America works. That's why we are the United States of America, and that's why this is still the greatest country in the world because the Constitution works for a reason, The Constitution just cares that you follow the right rules and you followed the right steps in order to seek relief. That's all the Constitution says, and that's all the Constitution is about. It's a way of governing how we operate as Americans, but in a very specific way, and not just with the whims of how we are aggrieved and want to get relief. there's a process, there's a way it takes time. It's unfortunate, but that's the process and that is why this is still the greatest country in the world because you don't get that in Russia. You don't get that in Mexico. You don't get that in some third World Nation. And those countries, two big dictators, are able to change their constitutions on the fly. Here in the United States, two big dictator wannabes. they may get their small wins, but in the long run they end up usually being out class more often than not. And we only have to look at in as a previous century, all the wrongs that were done, for instance, to Japanese Americans. That was made right So we have to be patient. We have to understand that this is a marathon and not a sprint. there's a proper way of doing things. And if we don't do it the right way, then we're essentially better call solving ourselves. Into mass extinction as someone that appreciates the court but also appreciates birthright citizenship, I wanna see this struck down so that then it comes back stronger within the confines of the law and is undeniable. Get your shit together and present yourself so that you are. A hundred percent Bulletproof. Thank you for joining me today. it's been very interesting to go back and dissect, this Supreme Court case I just wanted to make sure that we are level setting here that the hysteria we're seeing is strictly for people to. Hit the like button to feed the blog machines that govern our media because our media are lazy and they don't wanna report. And I. That laziness is permeates throughout the entire society to the point where actual litigators said it'd be a good idea to just bring this case forward as individual plaintiffs not as a class. That's where you should put your iron in. Those lawyers and organizations didn't advise their clients to go through proper channels to get this in front of the court and be actionable. This isn't on the justices. This isn't on the left or the right. It's on people being incompetent. It's on lawyers being incompetent, which is essentially pretty much 99% of the legal industry is incompetence, but that's another show for another day. Thank you for joining me today. My name is Enrique tga. This has been an episode of Precision Cycle for Friday, January 27th. Have a great weekend. We will see you on Monday as we begin a week of corporate narcissism and psychopathology. Looking at some great works by Naomi Klein, Joel Bachan, and how they present themselves after 20 plus years of them brilliantly illustrating that in their works, how we're still seeing elements of corporate narcissism that is. Leaving bad outcomes for its citizens. That would be beginning on Monday. Until then, have a great weekend. Thank you very much.