SELECT LANGUAGE BELOW

Stephen A Smith states he doesn’t hold Trump responsible for visiting the Supreme Court

Sports figure shares views on transgender athletes in the women's sports discussion

Stephen A. Smith recently shared his thoughts on the ongoing debate regarding birthright citizenship, expressing that he doesn’t fault President Donald Trump for attending Supreme Court hearings on the matter.

During a discussion on Thursday, Smith explained that Trump’s presence at the Supreme Court aligns with significant themes of his political platform and addressed the critiques aimed at Trump’s focus while in office. He remarked, “When the president came into the Supreme Court to attend oral arguments, I came here to say, ladies and gentlemen, that I don’t blame him. He is accused of not paying attention to what is happening in our hometown.”

Smith noted that the subject resonates with many voters, positioning it as a strategic engagement point that relates to broader public concerns. “You want to do what’s politically expedient to your advantage. If you’re President Donald Trump, this is the battle you fight because millions of Americans follow him on this issue,” he stated.

His remarks come as the Supreme Court examines the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which defines citizenship for individuals born in the United States. Smith pointed to the constitutional text, emphasizing its significance in shaping contemporary laws. “Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a United States citizen,” he pointed out.

He underscored the established legal understanding of automatic citizenship for those born within U.S. borders, explaining how that intention plays out in practice. Smith also raised thought-provoking questions about the implications of these laws, asking, “Do you believe that if someone crosses the border illegally and gives birth on U.S. soil, their child or newborn automatically becomes a U.S. citizen?”

While acknowledging the existing interpretation of the Constitution, he differentiated between legal realities and public sentiment, posing a critical question: “According to the U.S. Constitution, there’s no debate there. What I’m asking you is, is that right? Should that be the case?”

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
Telegram
WhatsApp

Related News