The brief order did not detail the court’s reasoning, as is typical, but says three justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — would have sided with Oklahoma.

Of course those asshats did. They don’t care about the law or the constitution, just their feels.

We had a law. The Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court invalidated it saying the First Amendment takes precedence so we’d need another Amendment limiting speech in politics, which is complicated. I believe we already have laws about foreign money in politics, but we have extremely weak enforcement for it (and weak enforcement of other political laws in general). If we made stronger laws requiring PACs to report where all of their funding came from the current Supreme Court would likely knock it down saying anonymous speech is also protected by the First Amendment.

“An originalist and strict constructionist understanding of the Constitution in the Scalia and Thomas tradition, as well as precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases … have found that a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is defined as a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth,” the document states.

The group then cites six cases including *Dred Scott v Sandford. *The 1857 ruling came a few years before the 1861 outbreak of the US Civil War over the issue of slavery, stating that enslaved people could not be citizens, meaning that they couldn’t expect to receive any protection from the courts or the federal government. The ruling also said that Congress did not have the power to ban slavery from a federal territory.

They’re kinda forgetting about the whole 14th Amendment thing which changes the constitution to ban slavery. An amendment is very different than a law banning slavery.

I would totally try that