that right? Oh, great.

Yeah, yeah.

And, by the way, I have a podcast, and you can listen to that podcast, too, on Marcus Constitution, and we play some clips from the oral argument this week, and you can listen to them.

So, here's a point.

Never until Trump II, the second Trump administration, has any president tried to de-citizenize, deny a passport, deny a Social Security card to an American-born baby on the grounds that the baby did not have at least one parent who was a citizen or green card holder.

Never in all of American history, they have appointed to two particular individuals from 1885, never litigated situations.

And those individuals, the State Department basically withheld some papers, but they weren't arguing birthright citizenship.

But we'd like to get the view of your view on this matter and where this stands in terms of international law and law in the United States, because there's also the military code of conduct as well that deals with war crimes, as has been pointed out by six Democratic members of Congress who were threatened with a seditious conspiracy and a grand jury refused to just issue a true bail and threw this nonsense out.

and

Sydney, you capture that sort of better than anyone.

And there's nothing wrong with being a politician is how, you know, we achieve things is, is political things, political ends.

So Lincoln early on.

So Lincoln, Lincoln believes there are at least 10 ways to read all men are created equal.

And I give you in Born Equal 10 different readings.

I gave you, I think the best one is Lincoln's.

dred scott is the ancien regime it's

So I, I'd love to have you start by just giving us your sort of first 35,000 foot impressions of the oral argument.

It's such an honor to be here, and thank you so much.

I don't come to these very often.

I think this is my-Third or fourth or fifth.

Um, uh, and I agree with you that, um...

So I think, I think it went quite well for, um, the ACLU team, for the challengers to the law.

I agree with you that Justice Jackson at the beginning didn't quite get her points in, but at the very end when, and she was the last one, she actually made some very important points about how even people who are here illegally, to- even here, here, here temporarily owe a duty to obey American laws.

By the way

But do you think that makes sense or no?

I'm cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will not only smack down the Trump executive order but will do so unanimously, perhaps not in reasoning, but in result, because Molly, there's one other thing I didn't tell you.

There's a statute.

It was passed in 1952.

While it's clear, so even if there were some debate about the 1860s, the federal statute in 1952, it's been on the books for almost seventy-five years, says really clearly, if you're born on American soil, you're an American citizen.

And if, by the way, it had been about your parents and their status, the statute would have talked about parents.

Is it your mother? Is it your father? You know, is it the bi- your biological father? Is it the person who's married to your mother at the time you're born, which might not be the same thing as your biological father? Other provisions of this statute talk about all of that, like for people born to American parents overseas, but this provision doesn't.

I wonder if with the three new justices, newer, if you have any thoughts about sort of who has surprised you or who has been the most capable of interesting thinking and decision.