- 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 11:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:A newborn whose parents don’t have a permanent residence here doesn’t seem to be the intent based on the wording.
It's not. It's for newborns.
1
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don’t care about the intent, and I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.
Pacific Legal Foundation
Scalia’s own words. Originalism and Textualism are not mutually exclusive. The textualist still has to deal with the common understanding of “jurisdiction” at the time of ratification. That’s going to be the issue here the SC has to interpret. I’d be disappointed with another stare decesis but would then hope enough momentum exists to pass an amendment.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:52 pm to ell_13
quote:
newborn whose parents don’t have a permanent residence here doesn’t seem to be the intent based on the wording.
Not only that but the whole reason that newborn got here is because the policy incentivize the parents to break our laws. No sane policy incentivizes people to break laws
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
That’s not equivalent imo to being allowed to stay here scot-free. In the “criminal rights” situation then deporting the parents as a penalty could be close to equivalent, not being rewarded with being able to stay scot-free. I’m trying to figure out if there’s an equivalent to that reward for citizens.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 11:54 pm to Crimson
“Subject to” is also up for interpretation. Why even add that part if “ All persons born or naturalized in the United States” is sufficient? Why the “and”?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:02 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Not only that but the whole reason that newborn got here is because the policy incentivize the parents to break our laws. No sane policy incentivizes people to break laws
This is what I’m wondering. If there area any policies that incentivize actual citizens to break the law, they don’t get penalized, but get rewarded.
If there isn’t, then it seems illegals have a higher status than citizens.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He specifically rejected legislative intent
Just to put a pin in this idea, here's Scalia referring to the Federalist Papers and their importance in understanding the intention of the founders. Scalia would use the Federalist Papers often in his opinions.
quote:
I speak to law students from the best law schools -- people, presumably, especially interested in the law and I ask them, "How many of you have read the Federalist Papers?" And a lot of hands will go up. [And I say], "No, not just Number 48 and the big ones. How many of you have read the Federalist Papers cover to cover?" Never more than about 5%.
And that is very sad, especially if you're interested in the Constitution. Here's a document that says what the Framers of it thought they were doing.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:10 am to ell_13
quote:
“Subject to” is also up for interpretation. Why even add that part if “ All persons born or naturalized in the United States” is sufficient? Why the “and”?
He knows the debate about the meaning of these words is “textual” and not about a “living constitution.”
But here he is, continuing his “stubborn, yet smartest guy in the room” shtick.
He’s consistently wrong, but he has too much hubris to ever see it.
So is indefatigable, he’s in here too. Both, always so wrong
Posted on 1/23/25 at 3:14 am to thelawnwranglers
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:12 pm to Kjnstkmn
Good find there
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:46 pm to ell_13
quote:
Was “domicile” a legal term at the time? I can’t seem to find it used anywhere in 1868 laws.
It's somewhat irrelevant, but you can use either for this case.
Your issue is conflation of who gets the status (residence or domicile) within the state of birth. The residence/domicile of the parents isn't discussed in the Amendment. It's the residence/domicile given to the CHILD when/where it's born.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:47 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
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...).
Yes, and English Common law when applicable....like the ruling in WKA
What he did NOT use, was legislative intent and legislative reports.
quote:
But wasn't opposed to determining intent, that wouldn't make sense.
I never said that. I have said WKA does just this with a very detailed analysis of the meaning of the terms at the time, going back hundreds of years into the common law.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:48 pm to Crimson
quote:
The textualist still has to deal with the common understanding of “jurisdiction” at the time of ratification.
WKA did this, in great detail.
quote:
That’s going to be the issue here t
It's already been done, in WKA.
The issue is if the current court will overturn WKA and create a new analysis of the text that is not textualist or originalist.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:49 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
Just to put a pin in this idea, here's Scalia referring to the Federalist Papers
That has nothing to do with legislative intent
quote:
Scalia would use the Federalist Papers often in his opinions.
And the ruling in WKA used a historical analysis of the legal understanding of the terms, the same.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:51 pm to Tigershatebama
quote:
He knows the debate about the meaning of these words is “textual” and not about a “living constitution.”
The textual analysis has been done, over a century ago.
People today are pushing for the court to make a "Living Constitution" analysis because of a legislative anachronism that led to an unexpected result.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:53 pm to wareagle7298
quote:
The whole reason Trump did this was to start this chain of lawsuits. He didn't think he had some magic wand and could end it. The whole point was to start the process to get it to the Supreme Court.
I'm not even sure scotus would grant certiorari this this clown show. Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:54 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I'm not even sure scotus would grant certiorari this this clown show.
Some states in the 5th Circuit are going to need to also sue to get that circuit split
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
Melt Day 3
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
What rights are stripped from US citizens?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:57 pm to goatmilker
quote:
What rights are stripped from US citizens?
Birthright citizenship.
Page 7 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News