- 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 1/22/25 at 10:43 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:43 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
how would you argue this if you were the administration?
They have to argue that Congress can create a class of persons that didn't exist when a Constitutional provision was passed, that can subvert the clear text of the Constitution.
Similar to the "only muskets existed when the 2A was written" Leftist argument.
quote:
Would there not be an argument that the exception (birthright citizenship for children of aliens) has swallowed the rule?
That's getting into the above "Living Constitution" argument. If I were home I'd quote Scalia having a stroke about this analysis
2
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:44 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Of course they can punish crimes.
Then that illegal is subject to the jurisdiction of the US
quote:
But they can't draft him or give him a social security number or a voter registration
Irrelevant. Some of those things didn't even exist when the 14A was written.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
Would you let illegals on your property?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:46 pm to Riverside
quote:
That’s the issue doofus.
It's been settled.
quote:
Is jurisdiction as used in the 14th Amendment synonymous with the general concept of jurisdiction in the rest of the law.
Yes. We have a very old Supreme Court case that relied on an extensive textualist/historical analysis.
There are 2 classes of people who don't fall under the jurisdictional language of the 14A. Only one is relevant today: diplomats. This was long-settled common law hundreds of years old prior to Wong Kim Ark. That is what the text of the Amendment says.
quote:
The legislative history from the 14th Amendment
Is irrelevant, especially if you value textualism
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:46 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
Would you let illegals on your property?
Irrelevant question to this discussion.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's getting into the above "Living Constitution" argument. If I were home I'd quote Scalia having a stroke about this analysis
While I am not a living constitution fan, I have a hard time imagining Scalia falling on the side of New Jersey in this one.
The originalist ethos doesn't have to be purely textual. It can encompass intent as well. As others have said, the 14th was never meant to be an open door for all pregnant women worldwide to flood our shores. It was plainly aimed at giving children of the former slaves and blacks generally citizenship.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
Why do you struggle/refuse to answer that?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:48 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
Why do you struggle/refuse to answer that?
Keeping threads on topic
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Is irrelevant, especially if you value textualism
I don't know that legislative intent can be that easily disregarded, when the only real opinion we have is 130 years old. Everything done back then was done on a different playing field.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Do you think GA could prosecute Laken Riley's killer? Or should he be freed?
I'm struggling to find a single person on the internet making this claim other than you.
Native Americans were subject to our laws but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Illegal immigrants would be in the same situation.
And immunity is granted by an act of congress.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:50 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
While I am not a living constitution fan, I have a hard time imagining Scalia falling on the side of New Jersey in this one.
I fully expect Thomas to show his hypocrisy over this issue.
I doubt Gorsuch will. Alito is a wild card.
MAGA better hope that the Wise Latina is replaced by the time this decision is before the USSC b/c it's likely 7-2 or 8-1 right now
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Keeping threads on topic
Topic is why are my tax dollars being wasted and are NJ tax payers served?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Irrelevant
Well it's pretty relevant now when you have a system that incentivizes people to come and destroy your country.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:51 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I don't know that legislative intent can be that easily disregarded
He seems to claim that only English common law can be used to interpret statutes and that Scalia only used English common law and no other sources to form his opinions.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:53 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
when the only real opinion we have is 130 years old.
Well no case subsequently has challenged it, and many have only strengthened it via dicta. Plus our statutory framework is built on this idea.
The flip side of your argument, in terms of pragmatism, is that it's going to be real hard to unwind this with a reversal. I believe this would be the longest-running precedent ever overruled.
You have to remember Gorsuch vote (wrote the opinion, IIRC) on the case that said a statute saying "sex", written at a time when they would have never understood it to include transgenders, covered transgenders. The primary reason was being boxed in by prior precedent over the legal area
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:55 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Well it's pretty relevant now when you have a system that incentivizes people to come and destroy your country.
"Banning assault rifles is pretty relevant because we can see the differences in them from muskets"
quote:
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
"The Constitution is permitting 'weapons of war' to kill children"
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:55 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
He seems to claim that only English common law can be used to interpret statutes and that Scalia only used English common law and no other sources to form his opinions.
He's following the Court's own interpretation of the issue and judicial philosophies more broadly, which is what makes the subject so interesting.
SFP is right that an original, textualist interpretation makes this an easy case on birthright citizenship. Its right there, and conservatives have in fact used textualism as the foundation of pretty much every conservative W in the SCOTUS for quite some time.
The question is when do changed circumstances warrant a more modern view of the language, and how to establish a standard for when to apply that scrutiny while keeping an originalist tone in other matters. Like the Electoral College or single member districts, for example.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
SlowFlowPro
I don’t know how scotus will decide here, I hope they decide that anchor babies are not constitutional.
Other than wanting to be right, do you see no problems with the current anchor baby situation? Would you support an update to the amendment to say children of illegals do not become citizens?
I don’t know how scotus will decide here, I hope they decide that anchor babies are not constitutional.
Other than wanting to be right, do you see no problems with the current anchor baby situation? Would you support an update to the amendment to say children of illegals do not become citizens?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:56 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
I'm struggling to find a single person on the internet making this claim other than you.
"The internet" will catch up to me eventually.
quote:
And immunity is granted by an act of congress.
Diplomatic immunity existed before Congress existed.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 10:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
going to be real hard to unwind this with a reversal
This will likely be the biggest factor. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett aren't overturning that sort of thing. I doubt Gorsuch as well.
So I agree for the moment with your 7-2 prediction. Thomas will be on board, and Alito pretty clearly is on the way out and may not have the same reservation he would have had 10 years ago.
Page 3 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News