14th Amendment
🜂 The Case for Amending the 14th Amendment: Clarity in Law, Citizenship, and Governance
By Logan Huntington Bixler
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution—ratified in 1868—was a monumental step in the pursuit of equality and civil rights. Its Citizenship Clause reads:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
At the time, this language was groundbreaking—offering a definitive status of citizenship to formerly enslaved individuals and their descendants. But in today’s legal and demographic landscape, the broad interpretation of this clause has given rise to controversy, particularly surrounding birthright citizenship.
Under current interpretation, virtually anyone born on U.S. soil is granted automatic citizenship—regardless of the legal status or allegiance of their parents. I believe this language requires careful amendment, to specify that citizenship should be granted only to those born to at least one U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
🜁 Why Precision in Legal Language Matters
This issue is not isolated to the federal Constitution. The deeper principle at stake here is the importance of clarity in governance. Whether in federal law or local zoning codes, vague or ambiguous language creates loopholes, fosters dispute, and weakens enforcement.
Consider the following comparisons:
• The 14th Amendment
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has long been debated. What does “jurisdiction” mean in practical, legal terms? Does it include children of foreign nationals or undocumented immigrants? The courts have largely said yes—but not without dissent and constitutional ambiguity.
• Local Township Zoning Codes
In my experience, terms like “waste site” or “dumping” are often undefined in municipal codebooks. This lack of precision opens the door for bad actors to exploit regulatory gray areas, evade accountability, and cause harm to communities—simply because enforcement officers are left to guess what the code means.
In both cases—federal and local—the lesson is clear: ambiguous legal language shifts the burden of interpretation onto the courts and the public, resulting in inconsistent applications and unintended outcomes.
🜃 Why the 14th Amendment Should Be Amended
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to ensure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants—individuals who were fully immersed in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It was never designed to enable birth tourism or to serve as a legal loophole for circumventing immigration policy.
Amending the clause to clarify citizenship would:
1. Clarify Legal Requirements
Ensure that citizenship is tied to genuine allegiance or lawful presence—not simply geography. This affirms the principle that citizenship comes with commitment, not just location.
2. Reduce System Exploitation
Discourage those who come to the U.S. solely to secure birthright citizenship for a child, without any intention of contributing to the nation or abiding by its laws.
3. Strengthen Civic Identity
Align the privilege of citizenship with the shared responsibilities, rights, and values of being part of the American community.
This is not about exclusion—it is about integrity. A legal framework should reflect both justice and national coherence.
🜄 What Zoning Law Teaches Us About Constitutional Reform
It may seem odd to compare township zoning codes to the U.S. Constitution. But at their core, both are governing documents—and both suffer when terms are left open-ended or undefined.
When zoning laws fail to clearly define words like “waste” or fail to even include them, enforcement breaks down.
When the Constitution lacks clarity about who qualifies for automatic citizenship, it invites misinterpretation—sometimes in ways that erode the very principles it was written to protect.
Just as municipalities must regularly revise and clarify their codes to meet modern realities, our federal Constitution must also evolve—not in spirit, but in specificity—so that it serves both its original intent and contemporary fairness.
🜅 A Call for Clarity, Not Exclusion
Amending the 14th Amendment is not an attack on immigration or diversity.
It is a call for precision, for fairness, and for law that protects its own intent.
If we demand clarity in every other aspect of governance—from traffic codes to zoning laws—we must demand the same from the foundational language of our Republic.
Citizenship is not simply a birthright.
It is a shared covenant—one built on legal presence, national responsibility, and mutual respect.
Law that cannot be understood cannot be followed. Law that cannot be followed cannot be just.
Let us have the courage to refine our law—not to rewrite our values, but to protect them.
Education Policy & Classroom Neutrality
Good evening,
My name is Logan Bixler, and I want to speak with you about the importance of keeping our classrooms focused on education.
As a combat veteran, I have dedicated my life to defending the rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution including the right to free speech. These rights are the cornerstone of our constitutional republic, ensuring that all voices are heard and respected. However, there is a time and place for exercising protected speech, and the classroom is not that place.
Our schools should be places where children learn critical thinking, gain knowledge, and feel safe exploring diverse perspectives not spaces where personal beliefs, whether religious, political, or ideological, are imposed upon them.
When teachers display flags, symbols, or memorabilia representing specific religious, gender, or political ideologies, they send a message to impressionable young minds that their beliefs should align with those of the educator.
This is not education it is propaganda.
It shifts the focus from teaching core subjects and fostering independent thought to influencing children toward specific worldviews. We must stand firm in the belief that classrooms should remain neutral spaces, upholding respect for all students, regardless of their background or family values. Schools should teach children how to think, not what to think. Parents -not - teachers are responsible for guiding their children's values and beliefs.
When we allow symbols of ideology to dominate our classrooms, we risk alienating students and families who hold differing perspectives. Worse, we create an environment where debate, diversity, and critical thinking are stifled replaced instead by conformity to a single narrative.
Our commitment should be to unity, not division. By removing ideological flags and symbols, we ensure that every student feels valued, respected, and included, regardless of their beliefs or identity. Education must be about academics, not activism.
I fully support the freedoms that define our nation, but these freedoms thrive when applied in the appropriate arenas not when they are imposed upon children in the classroom. Let us reaffirm our dedication to creating schools that celebrate diversity through understanding, not by pushing any one perspective.
My hope is that, as you vote on this important matter, you consider the children whose values may not align with those of their teacher. Every student deserves a classroom where they can focus on learning without feeling pressured to conform to any ideology.
Decisions on this issue should prioritize the well-being of all children and respect the diversity of beliefs within our community. Whatever guidelines, measures, or procedures are implemented must be clearly communicated and incorporated into professional training for teachers, ensuring consistency and accountability throughout the school system.
I urge you to stand with parents who entrust their children to the educational system with the expectation that educators are there to teach not to impose their personal beliefs. Morals, ideologies, and values should be taught at home, not in the classroom.
Ohio School Curriculum Overview: Ohio Department of Education
Clermont County School Curriculums: Check individual district websites for their curriculum
National Prayer Service at the Washington National Cathedral
🜂 Bridging Faith and Truth:
A Response to Bishop Mariann Budde’s Public Platform
By Logan Huntington Bixler
Published: 2025
In January 2025, during a National Prayer Service held at the Washington National Cathedral, Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde delivered a sermon that directly addressed former President Donald J. Trump. The moment was striking—not for its spiritual insight, but for its political posture.
For those who wish to watch the address, the full video is available here:
🔗 National Cathedral – Prayer Service Sermon, Jan 21, 2025
While religious leaders may hold political views, the deliberate intertwining of ecclesiastical authority with partisan critique marks a troubling pattern—one that reflects a broader drift in certain corners of American Christianity: the elevation of secular humanism over Biblical authority.
🜁 A Misuse of the Pulpit: The 2020 Rebuke of President Trump
This was not Bishop Budde’s first public confrontation with President Trump. In June 2020, after the then-president visited the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church near the White House, Bishop Budde quickly moved to publicly rebuke him. Rather than using the moment to speak on prayer, unity, or spiritual reflection, she used her national platform to deliver a political condemnation.
🔗 Watch the 2020 Interview Clip
🔗 AP Coverage: "Episcopal Bishop Says Trump Used Church as Prop"
In doing so, she modeled what I believe to be a clear misuse of Christian leadership: turning the church into a stage for cultural confrontation rather than a sanctuary for grace and truth.
🜂 Theological Standing: Is Budde Protestant?
Following a conversation with a citizen who questioned whether Bishop Budde is truly Protestant, it is helpful to clarify her theological background.
Bishop Budde is the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, D.C. The Episcopal Church is a member of the worldwide Anglican Communion, with roots in the Church of England. As a historical product of the Reformation, Anglicanism—while retaining some Catholic traditions—is doctrinally Protestant.
The Protestant Reformation emphasized core principles such as:
-
Sola scriptura (Scripture alone as authority)
-
Sola fide (Justification by faith alone)
-
While the Episcopal Church retains these theological roots, in recent decades it has adopted progressive and theologically liberal stances, distancing itself from traditional Protestant orthodoxy.
📚 Anglicanism Overview – Wikipedia
📚 Episcopal Church – Denominational Summary
📚 Protestant vs Catholic Doctrine – DTS
🜃 Christianity Is Not Up for Redefinition
Bishop Budde, along with other progressive clergy, has repeatedly aligned Christian doctrine with secular ideologies—particularly in regard to sexuality, gender, and marriage.
But Scripture is not ambiguous on these matters:
-
Marriage is defined as between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4–6)
-
Homosexual behavior is described as sin (Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10)
-
The Church is called not to conform to the world (Romans 12:2; 2 Timothy 4:3–4)
-
When a church leader openly contradicts these teachings, they are no longer interpreting Scripture—they are rewriting it. That is not Christian leadership. That is secular accommodation disguised in religious language.
🜄 The Rise of Secular Humanism in the Church
At the heart of this issue is the philosophical shift known as secular humanism—a worldview that replaces God’s authority with human feelings, trends, and evolving social constructs.
Secular humanism asserts that:
-
Right and wrong are defined by people, not God
-
Morality should shift with culture
-
Scripture must “evolve” to stay relevant
-
This mindset leads to:
-
The redefinition of marriage
-
The blurring of gender identity
-
The denial of sin in favor of “personal truth”
-
In contrast, Biblical Christianity is built on the conviction that God’s Word is eternal, unchanging, and authoritative. Scripture does not shift with the times. It anchors us through them.
“For the time will come when people will not endure sound doctrine... but will gather teachers to suit their own desires.”
— 2 Timothy 4:3
🜅 Why This Matters: Truth, Accountability, and the Church
When the church begins to echo the culture rather than call it higher, it loses its power to transform hearts. The sanctuary becomes a stage. The message becomes diluted. And the Gospel becomes optional—edited to avoid offense.
Bishop Budde’s theology falls firmly within this pattern. She has chosen to prioritize cultural acceptance over Biblical truth. And in doing so, she contributes to the very erosion of the church’s witness that Scripture warned us about.
This is not just a denominational issue. It’s not about politics.
It’s about the integrity of the Gospel.
🜆 Conclusion: A Call Back to the Word
The church does not exist to be popular.
It exists to be faithful.
It exists to stand when others bow.
To speak when others stay silent.
To uphold truth—even when it costs us comfort or approval.
Leaders like Bishop Budde have every right to speak—but not to speak falsely in the name of Christ. The Gospel is not ours to rewrite. It is ours to uphold.
And we must do so boldly.
🔍 Sources & Further Reading
-
2020 Public Rebuke at St. John’s Episcopal Church
• Video: YouTube
• Coverage: AP News -
Denominational Overview of the Episcopal Church
• Wikipedia – Episcopal Church
• Wikipedia – Anglicanism -
Protestant vs Catholic Beliefs
• Voice: DTS – Key Differences
• Diffen Comparison Chart
• Explore God – Summary
“I Work for a Living”: A Blueprint for Leadership and Community Progress
🜂 The Military Mentality: Leadership Through Service
By Logan Huntington Bixler
“You don’t salute me. I work for a living.”
In the military, there’s a common exchange between junior enlisted soldiers and their sergeants. When a new soldier—unaware of the custom—salutes a Non-Commissioned Officer, the NCO often replies:
“You don’t salute me. I work for a living.”
That phrase stuck with me—not just as a piece of military courtesy, but as a principle of leadership. A leader doesn’t stand above others demanding recognition. A true leader rolls up his sleeves and gets to work.
Leadership happens in the trenches—
In the halls of government,
on the floors of local businesses,
and in the streets of our neighborhoods.
“The real experts on our communities aren’t the ones behind desks making policy; they are the people living with the consequences of those policies every day.”
If we want to fix what’s broken, modernize what’s outdated, and improve what’s inefficient, we don’t need top-down control.
We need leadership that listens.
🜁 Bridging the Gap Between Government and the People
One of the biggest failures in modern governance is the disconnect between decision-makers and the people who live with those decisions.
Too often, policies are written without an understanding of real-world impact.
Taxpayers are left frustrated, unheard, and underserved.
That’s why I propose creating a Community Advisory Panel—
A diverse coalition representing all walks of life:
-
Business owners
-
Blue-collar workers
-
Veterans
-
Farmers
-
Single parents
-
First responders
-
Retirees
-
Young professionals
-
Their mission?
-
Provide direct feedback on how government systems are serving the public
-
Identify inefficiencies and outdated practices
-
Push for meaningful reform
-
Ensure accountability to the people
-
🜃 Are Our Systems Meeting Public Needs?
At this moment in time, my answer is: NO.
Every taxpayer should know what they’re paying for—
and more importantly,
whether they’re getting what they paid for.
A functional public system must do more than collect revenue.
It must deliver services efficiently, transparently, and accessibly.
The questions we should be asking:
-
Are online services and tools easy to use?
-
Are government forms clear, or confusing by design?
-
Are staff helpful and available when citizens need assistance?
-
Are workers empowered to guide residents—or are they told to avoid involvement out of fear of liability?
-
Public service should serve the public.
If we’re funding salaries and supporting institutions, we deserve results—not excuses.
🜄 Planning for Growth Without Losing Ourselves
Communities across the country are expanding.
And with that growth comes risk—
of doing it wrong.
Growth isn’t the problem.
Unplanned growth is.
When development outpaces infrastructure, everyone pays:
-
Overcrowded roads
-
Emergency services stretched thin
-
Unregulated land use and erosion
-
Energy surges and grid strain
-
Rising tax burdens to fill the gaps
-
The smart growth sequence is simple:
-
Infrastructure First
Roads, utilities, emergency services, and schools must be modernized and expanded before development. -
Business Development Next
Support local businesses and attract sustainable investment that aligns with shared values. -
Residential Expansion Last
Once the foundation is secure, build communities—but not before we’re ready.
Unchecked development without infrastructure is a recipe for chaos.
Let’s build smarter—not just faster.
🜅 Leadership Is Work, Not Privilege
Leadership is not about ceremonies.
It’s not about status or scripted speeches.
Leadership is about:
-
Showing up
-
Listening hard
-
Working harder
-
Delivering results
-
I don’t need a salute.
I don’t need recognition.
I need the opportunity to serve.
Communities don’t need more paper-pushers, power-seekers, or hollow titles.
We need leaders who are ready to get to work.
Because real leadership means: I work for a living.