- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: NJ challenging EO to end birth right citizenship
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
What constitutional right do you speak of? The 14th ammendment was for dred Scott decision to naturalize slaves. Not for anchor babies. Otherwise why have a border at all? Don't be obtuse by twisting the constitution incorrectly to fit some fake narrative
1
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:32 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
He’s never right
When you think about it, he’s really only trying to convince himself…
Sad, isn’t it?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:33 pm to Vacherie Saint
Yep. Like I said I actually appreciate him being a spaz because typically it goes in the opposite way he says which benefits everyone else.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:33 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
I usually dip once his arse is good and whipped,
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:34 pm to Arkaea79
quote:
Don't be obtuse by twisting the constitution incorrectly to fit some fake narrative
Which of the 2 exceptions of Wong Kim Ark do "anchor babies" fall into?
Are they children of diplomats or persons occupying American territory in a hostile manner?
This post was edited on 1/23/25 at 8:35 pm
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:35 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
When you think about it, he’s really only trying to convince himself…
Sad, isn’t it?
It's funny when you were presented with a specific way to defend your point and you immediately shift to ad homs.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
Let’s try this again…
We thing Wong is incorrect.
We thing Wong is incorrect.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:36 pm to Vacherie Saint
Can you cite why it's wrong in this context without relying on legislative intent or Congress creating a class of persons considered "illegal" after WKA?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
I already did.
The foundation of the constitution is social compact theory. The compact does not exist if the constitution grants no control over who participates in the compact. IE pure birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was revised in debate for this very reason.
I already covered the Common Law problems with the Wong ruling. You just don’t want to be a big boy and listen.
Your arguments about textualism are meaningless straw men.
There will be a sound and thoughtful constitutional case made against Wong. Just lay back and try to enjoy it.
The foundation of the constitution is social compact theory. The compact does not exist if the constitution grants no control over who participates in the compact. IE pure birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was revised in debate for this very reason.
I already covered the Common Law problems with the Wong ruling. You just don’t want to be a big boy and listen.
Your arguments about textualism are meaningless straw men.
There will be a sound and thoughtful constitutional case made against Wong. Just lay back and try to enjoy it.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and not actual legal arguments, which is why the arguments are so weak on that side of the aisle.
I don't see how you can say that. Even if those arguments were to fall under something under than your understanding of textualism*, that doesn't make them non-legal arguments.
*I'm not sure there's a universally accepted view of textualism. As an example Scalia wrote about two different forms of textualism.
quote:
Textualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism, a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute.
quote:
Can you cite why it's wrong in this context without relying on legislative intent or Congress creating a class of persons considered "illegal" after WKA?
I always refer to Congress and the years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. There were people here, Native Americans, who met both of the supposed criteria for citizenship. They were born here and subject to our laws. Yet in the years after, Congress never objected to their exclusion, nor did they ever seek to resolve this fact.
So it would seem clear that according to Congress that those weren't the two criteria that needed to be met.
Now if you consider that to be "legislative intent" and something Scalia would have rejected. I'd refer you to his comments about the same 14th Amendment and whether the Equal Protections Clause prohibited sex based discrimination.
"...nobody ever thought that's what it meant, nobody ever voted for that"
That seems to fall in line with his idea of originalism. "It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted."
If, when the 14th was adopted, it didn't mean citizenship for all who met those two criteria mentioned above, what did it mean?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:48 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
The 14th amendment was revised in debate for this very reason.
quote:
Can you cite why it's wrong in this context without relying on legislative intent
quote:
I already covered the Common Law problems with the Wong ruling. You just don’t want to be a big boy and listen.
Literally no court since WKA agrees with you. It's been almost 130 years for this argument to have been made.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
How many challenges in 130 years?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
I agree that this route should be a constitutional amendment. That’s the correct path.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:53 pm to Jbird
quote:
How many challenges in 130 years?
None. There were dicta from time to time. One six years after Wong Kim Ark in the Slaughter-House Cases said
quote:
“That [the Fourteenth Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:53 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
I don't see how you can say that. Even if those arguments were to fall under something under than your understanding of textualism*, that doesn't make them non-legal arguments.
Saying we can't afford birthright citizenship and entitlements is a non-legal argument (just made in the other thread a few minutes ago)
The racist/demographics arguments are non-legal.
Etc.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The racist/demographics arguments are non-legal.
Maybe they should leave then since we’re so racist.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:56 pm to Jbird
quote:
How many challenges in 130 years?
I couldn't tell you how many, but we didn't get subsequent appellate and USSC rulings confirming it because there were no challenges.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:56 pm to Jbird
He keeps thinking he can slip this shite past us.
Here’s another fun fact: A baby born of a foreign national on a ship in US waters is NOT guaranteed citizenship unless certain “qualifiers” are met. Not constitutional?
Here’s another fun fact: A baby born of a foreign national on a ship in US waters is NOT guaranteed citizenship unless certain “qualifiers” are met. Not constitutional?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I couldn't tell you how many
Why not? You made the point…, and you apparently know everyfrickingthing
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:57 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
He keeps thinking he can slip this shite past us.
I'm not "slipping" anything. I'm explaining the current law and how its textual analysis was strong.
Page 11 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News