- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: ACLU sues Trump administration over birthright citizenship executive order
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:53 am to mikesliveisacheater
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:53 am to mikesliveisacheater
quote:
I don't know why they would want this EO to set case law, unless they have reason to think that Roberts and ACB will side with the liberals again.
There is probably a 75% chance Roberts and ACB side with the liberals on this question (to be elucidated further).
We really need to stop this anchor baby practice in the U.S. The 13th and 14th amendments were for normalizing the freed slaves not giving rights to anchor baby factories in California.
1
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:54 am to scrooster
Necessary
Need this fast tracked
Need this fast tracked
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:55 am to GumboPot
quote:
There is probably a 75% chance Roberts and ACB side with the liberals on this question (
If Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch follow their purported preferred interpretation, ,they would also side with the ACLU.
This is a test of their hypocrisy and desire to politicize the court.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:55 am to scrooster
This was always going to court if he signed it.
No big deal, judicial will be forced to do it's constitutional job of defining the constitution
No big deal, judicial will be forced to do it's constitutional job of defining the constitution
Posted on 1/21/25 at 7:57 am to scrooster
lawfare playbook
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:00 am to DarthRebel
quote:
, judicial will be forced to do it's constitutional job of defining the constitution
This has already been done.
The question is if certain justices wants to act political and hypocritical
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:00 am to cadillacattack
quote:
lawfare playbook
NC OWES ME A DOLLAR
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:09 am to scrooster
Is the 14th amendment not clear on this…
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:15 am to AuburnTigers
quote:
to the court systems we go. In the mean time, its the law of the land
Until an injunction is issued. This is likely not Constitutional. We would need an amendment, and that is not happening.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Again, the definitional issue is "jurisdiction." Indians definitively fell under US jurisdiction at the time of Ark. Yet, they were deemed otherwise in the 1898 finding, and therefore not entitled to the birthright according to SCOTUS.
but in this case want to make the Constitution a living document and ignore those analyses.
The question is whether a foreign migrant who circumvents US Jurisdiction and US law actually falls under US jurisdiction? Dems who insist illegal immigrants have broken no law, obviously feel the migrants fall outside of normal jurisdiction.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:18 am to ouflak
We have countries who are not friendly using the open borders as a weapon against us. We have some citizens within our borders using immigration to destroy the nation from within.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:30 am to scrooster
LACLU - Latin American Civil Liberties Union?
AACLU - Anti-American Civil Liberties Union?
AACLU - Anti-American Civil Liberties Union?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:30 am to lepdagod
quote:The fourteenth amendment, the jurisprudence interpreting it, and the common law supporting that jurisprudence are clear.
Is the 14th amendment not clear on this…
quote:US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 682 (1898) (citations omitted, emphasis added).
The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
This post was edited on 1/21/25 at 8:32 am
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:31 am to scrooster
quote:
ACLU
Time to call a spade a spade. Name them a terriorist organization.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:32 am to scrooster
What standing do they have to bring suit?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:33 am to AuburnTigers
quote:
to the court systems we go.
this was the plan all along. have SCOTUS define "birthright citizenship".
preferred outcome:
"The 14th Amendment does not apply to immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally."
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:34 am to scrooster
Nah. This is good. In order for the courts to decide definitively on this issue, someone has to sue. Nice to see the ACLU actually doing something for once.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch follow their purported preferred interpretation, ,they would also side with the ACLU.
Do you have a link of their purported opinions on this issue? I'm sure it's highly nuanced and whether or not the incoming decisions are hypocritical or not will be based on their current positions on the issue and how the issue is frames in the courts.
And is someone hypocritical if they change position based on new data?
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:35 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:
Nah. This is good. In order for the courts to decide definitively on this issue, someone has to sue.
Right. And it sets up the legal framework to pass better legislation that will withstand judicial scrutiny.
Posted on 1/21/25 at 8:37 am to Smokeyone
quote:
What standing do they have to bring suit?
Funny but its a serious question. Has anyone been harmed by the EO yet? (rhetorical)
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News