All right, third hour. Clay and Buck kicks off now. Thank you for being with us. We've got some

breaking news for you. Not unexpected, but still breaking news. Federal judge, John Koganauer.

That's a tough one. I don't know how to say that one, Clay. John C. Cooganauer has, we see, sided with the states.

But basically here, the Trump executive order on birthright citizenship has now been hit by a judge who says it is unconstitutional.

Blatantly unconstitutional. You've also had 22 states, along with activist groups,

filing lawsuits to halt the so-called order. They say it violates the 14th Amendment.

This was U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington State.

This guy is a Reagan appointee, and he has said that, yeah, this has been blocked. So temporarily

blocked. This was to be expected. And here's where this is going to go. It's going to go to the

Supreme Court. I think we all know that. That's the plan. Just to be clear, there's no surprise here.

This is actually the process. You know, this is what they were hoping the response would be. I'm not, I

shouldn't say hoping, what they knew the response would be. And now it'll make its way up to the Supreme Court. Clay, it's going to be interesting. I think that a lot of people who disagree with Trump's executive order on this issue, they think this is just going to get swept aside by the Supreme Court and that this is all, it's all so clear.

Well, here's the problem.

The amendment in question, when you look at it, has what is effectively a redundancy with the subject to the jurisdiction thereof clause. And when you understand the history of

these kinds of laws and the way citizenship has worked in many, many other countries,

they're going to have to explain why they would add these subject. Because if it's just

you're born here, you're good. why do you have to be subject to the jurisdiction

thereof? I mean, because you're all right, if you're on U.S. soil, of course, you're subject

to U.S. jurisdiction at some level, that point of, again, those who agree with you and me

on what should happen here, that point of redundancy in the amendment is what's going to get so much focus because you are subject to the jurisdiction of your actual nationality while in the United States.

And that would be a conflicting, a conflicting jurisdiction.

So this is where the issue, I think, becomes a much more complicated and a closer affair

...