- 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 11:11 pm to thelawnwranglers
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:11 pm to thelawnwranglers
0
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:11 pm to Crimson
quote:
The congressional record from May 30, 1866
You know who rejects giving this weight? Scalia and Thomas
quote:
The Court goes on, however, to discuss the supposed "purpose" of the statute, which it primarily derives from a single Senate Report. Even assuming a majority of Congress read the Senate Report, agreed with it, and voted for Dodd–Frank with the same intent, "we are a government of laws, not of men, and are governed by what Congress enacted rather than by what it intended." And "it would be a strange canon of statutory construction that would require Congress to state in committee reports … that which is obvious on the face of a statute.
-Clarence Thomas
quote:
The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy. We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators.
-Scalia
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
Bringing up the 2nd amendment doesn't really help your position here. We can look at the terminology and language used at the time they wrote the 2nd amendment and determine what the spirit of that amendment was- it was saying the people have the right to possess weapons on par with what the government/military had. Assault rifles didn't have to be mentioned because obviously they didn't exist yet.
Same with the 14th amendment, the idea of legal and illegal immigrants didnt exist yet so the terminology they used to describe citizenship would have been different than what we use today. There would not have been any point to passing an amendment to clarify that foreign diplomats aren't citizens. "Subject to the jurisdiction" was their way of saying people who "belong" to the US government or something along those lines.
Same with the 14th amendment, the idea of legal and illegal immigrants didnt exist yet so the terminology they used to describe citizenship would have been different than what we use today. There would not have been any point to passing an amendment to clarify that foreign diplomats aren't citizens. "Subject to the jurisdiction" was their way of saying people who "belong" to the US government or something along those lines.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
I'm making an argument that this policy is destructive to the country and constitution.
It makes no sense to say that the Constitution supports a policy that will eventually destroy it.
It makes no sense to say that the Constitution supports a policy that will eventually destroy it.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:13 pm to HagaDaga
quote:
or if it there’s a personal opinion involved too.
Of course it’s his personal opinion…. He’s a retarded leftist lawyer who’s been wrong on 90% of the recent legal opinions issued by the SCOTUS
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:14 pm to HagaDaga
quote:
So you hate that gay marriage and abortion were “found” to be constitutional.
I always criticized the rhetoric of Roe and was openly critical of the way the court made gay marriage a national issue in real time (I wasn't alive when Roe was handed down).
I personally support gay marriage, but not the legal rhetoric of that ruling. Roberts' dissent summarized this very well and did so succinctly.
quote:
The anchor baby piece seems to be a clarification of an actual amendment.
No, it's in the text, based on a textualist analysis. You don't need to go outside the text for this one, while nowhere is the text close to abortion or gay marriage.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
I will bet you permanent ban for the loser that Clarence Thomas sides with Trump
Please accept so your sorry arse can be gone
Please accept so your sorry arse can be gone
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:16 pm to BuckeyeGoon
quote:
We can look at the terminology and language used at the time they wrote the 2nd amendment and determine what the spirit of that amendment was
Read Wong Kim Ark for this done for the 14A.
quote:
legal and illegal immigrants didnt exist yet so the terminology they used to describe citizenship would have been different than what we use today.
The legal concepts make this statutory distinction irrelevant.
The Supreme Court, based on the terminology and language used at the time, cite 2 classes of person to which jurisdiction do not apply. "Illegal immigrants" fall under neither class, so this statutory and factual anachronism is irrelevant to the legal analysis at hand.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:17 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
I'm making an argument that this policy is destructive to the country and constitution.
That's fine. The proper solution is an amendment.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:19 pm to Bourre
quote:
He’s a retarded leftist lawyer who’s been wrong on 90% of the recent legal opinions issued by the SCOTUS
The last time y'all got this emotional over a legal discussion, it was over the same charlatans arguing that an impeachment and Senate conviction were required before a former President can be prosecuted.
How did that work out?
Just look at the melts.
This post was edited on 1/22/25 at 11:20 pm
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
What is the textual definition of “reside” in the context of Section 1?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You know who rejects giving this weight? Scalia and Thomas
Interesting quotes to be sure but it takes more than legislators to ratify an amendment to the constitution. An amendment isn’t on the same level as legislation subject to judicial review.
In this case, their perspective and intent are relevant. It would certainly have been nice for them to have used more precise language in this context or we wouldn’t be having this disagreement.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
Ok, so you’ve ignored answering the below twice now, so obviously that gives me your answer.
quote:
Would you support an update to the amendment to say children of illegals do not become citizens?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:22 pm to Crimson
quote:
Interesting quotes to be sure but it takes more than legislators to ratify an amendment to the constitution. An amendment isn’t on the same level as legislation subject to judicial review.
Literally nothing changes in a textualist analysis.
quote:
their perspective and intent are relevant.
If you want to reject textualism, sure.
quote:
It would certainly have been nice for them to have used more precise language in this context or we wouldn’t be having this disagreement.
This disagreement is about 5 years old. There has never been disagreement in any case of note.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:25 pm to Bourre
quote:
Of course it’s his personal opinion…. He’s a retarded leftist lawyer who’s been wrong on 90% of the recent legal opinions issued by the SCOTUS
I’m not going to get my hopes up on this one and trust ACB, kav, and/or goresuch. But he definitely seems to not think it’s an issue that needs to get stopped. That’s his perogative but it helps understand his arguments.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:What is meant by “reside” here?
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.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
Doesn't the fact that the 14th amendment had to be clarified almost 50 years after it was written leave us with the conclusion that the original language was unclear? If we can agree that the amendment has had to be reinterpreted in the past, why can't we reinterprete it again?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The proper solution is an amendment.
Yes.
That would have also been the proper way to deal with the slavery question heading into the 1860s but the sharp divide in public opinion made that impossible.
This post was edited on 1/22/25 at 11:31 pm
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you want to reject textualism, sure.
False. A textualist would try and understand what “jurisdiction” meant to the authors when it was ratified. Their arguments and debates provide that perspective.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:30 pm to HagaDaga
quote:
Ok, so you’ve ignored answering the below
Because my opinion is irrelevant
I don't really care. The policy doesn't really move me either way. Most of the issues people ultimately have are unrelated welfare programs that I oppose universally.
I'm much more concerned with being right about the legal analysis today than if an amendment gets passed either way.
Page 5 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News