- 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 11:31 pm to Crimson
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:31 pm to Crimson
quote:
That’s the issue. I think you have to go back to the context in which the amendment was passed as well as what was said by those that proposed and enacted it.
Scalia was known to do this as an orginalist.
quote:
Whereas textualist approaches to constitutional interpretation focus solely on the text of the document, originalist approaches consider the meaning of the Constitution as understood by at least some segment of the populace at the time of the Founding.
quote:
For many years, some prominent scholars (such as Robert Bork) argued that in interpreting the Constitution, one should look to the original intent of the people who drafted, proposed, adopted, or ratified the Constitution to determine what those people wanted to convey through the text.4 According to this view, original intent may be found in sources outside of the text, such as debates in the Constitutional Convention or the Federalist Papers.
quote:
Over the course of Justice Antonin Scalia’s near thirty-year tenure on the Supreme Court, he and several prominent scholars explained that, as originalists, they were committed to seeking to understand original public meaning of the Constitution.10 This method considers the plain meaning of the Constitution’s text as it would have been understood by the general public, or a reasonable person, who lived at the time the Constitution was ratified.11 This approach has much in common with textualism but is not identical. The original public meaning approach to understanding the Constitution is not based solely on the text, but, rather, draws upon the original public meaning of the text as a broader guide to interpretation.
1
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:32 pm to Crimson
quote:
A textualist would try and understand what “jurisdiction” meant to the authors when it was ratified
I just gave you quotes from the 2 most preeminent textualists. You tell me if they agree with what I quoted.
Textualism would look at the history and common law usage, which Wong Kim Ark does in great detail.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
It seems you are wrong about Scalia…
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:33 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
Scalia was known to do this as an orginalist
He specifically rejected legislative intent
He looked to historical analysis, especially the common law.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:34 pm to ell_13
quote:
It seems you are wrong about Scalia…
Based on?
This is Scalia
quote:
The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy.
This post was edited on 1/22/25 at 11:35 pm
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:35 pm to HagaDaga
Random question for anyone able to answer….
Seems like the anchor baby benifit is given after an illegal act is committed. What are other examples of this? Why wouldn’t that be ok in situations where other illegal acts create a benefit?
Seems like the anchor baby benifit is given after an illegal act is committed. What are other examples of this? Why wouldn’t that be ok in situations where other illegal acts create a benefit?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Whereas textualist approaches to constitutional interpretation focus solely on the text of the document, originalist approaches consider the meaning of the Constitution as understood by at least some segment of the populace at the time of the Founding.
You still need to define “reside” for me though.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:36 pm to HagaDaga
quote:
Seems like the anchor baby benifit is given after an illegal act is committed. What are other examples of this?
Criminal rights when an illegal commits a crime on US soil
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:37 pm to ell_13
quote:
as understood by at least some segment of the populace at the time of the Founding.
Not legislators
quote:
You still need to define “reside” for me though
Read Wong Kim Ark
ETA: it's the state of their residence. What's confusing?
This post was edited on 1/22/25 at 11:38 pm
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
It’s not irrelevant because it helps understand your opinion better. Thanks for the clarification.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You don’t want to share your thoughts here?
Read Wong Kim Ark
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:38 pm to HagaDaga
quote:
It’s not irrelevant because it helps understand your opinion better
No.
They are completely unrelated.
This conflation is exactly why I don't give my personal opinions often.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:39 pm to ell_13
It's the state of their residence. It's not some complicated legal concept.
Residence is a lower status than domicile. It's where you reside.
Residence is a lower status than domicile. It's where you reside.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:It seems to not be meant for people who don’t reside here permanently. Yet if someone was simply visiting and the child is born here, they get citizenship, right? It at least sets up an argument that non-permanent residents are not the intended purpose of this amendment.
it's the state of their residence. What's confusing?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:41 pm to ell_13
quote:
It seems to not be meant for people who don’t reside here permanently.
It's not. It's for newborns.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Criminal rights when an illegal commits a crime on US soil
I had a feeling that would be your response
Was more wondering if actual citizens have anything they can benifit from an initial illegal act.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:42 pm to HagaDaga
quote:
Was more wondering if actual citizens have anything they can benifit from an initial illegal act.
Criminal rights when a citizen commits a crime on US soil
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
I disagree as it helps me knowing.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Was “domicile” a legal term at the time? I can’t seem to find it used anywhere in 1868 laws.
Residence is a lower status than domicile
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He specifically rejected legislative intent
He specifically says that interpretation of the constitution should be made by what the constitution meant at the time it was adopted. He used plenty of contemporary sources to find that meaning (dictionaries and the Federalist Papers, etc...). Even when interpreting something as far back as 200 years ago.
He rejected the idea of relying on the congressional record to find that intent. But wasn't opposed to determining intent, that wouldn't make sense. How else do you interpret a statute but by determining intent? Even using English common law is an attempt to understand the intent of the law.
This word means this, that word means that... is trying to understand the intention of the written law. The opposite is what he soundly rejected, ignoring what the words written mean and applying what they ought to mean.
Page 6 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News