- 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
0
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Some states in the 5th Circuit are going to need to also sue to get that circuit split
Both would be Alito.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
If I am a citizen do I need birthright citizenship?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:00 pm to goatmilker
quote:
If I am a citizen do I need birthright citizenship?
If you lose your citizenship, how do you not lose your rights?
I know you're creating the standard in/out group, but it ignores reality
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:01 pm to thelawnwranglers
No standing
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:01 pm to goatmilker
quote:If a president can re-interpret an amendment and remove it with an EO.... damn near all of them.
What rights are stripped from US citizens?
No reason the next president couldn't come in and say "well regulated" in the 2A means congress can pass any law it wants. Even though "well regulated" has nothing to do with congressional pwoer. But hey! Whatever the president says is good, amiright?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
If I lose citizenship I do not expect rights as laid down from that country.
But the question is of those not citizens at the outset.
But the question is of those not citizens at the outset.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I never said that.
This is why people hate you.
quote:
He specifically rejected legislative intent
But sure you never said that he was opposed to determining intent.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:04 pm to thelawnwranglers
The states are not affected by this. The people who would be denied citizenship are the ones affected. They need to be the ones to sue.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:05 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:
Why are states or in this case my state wasting tax payer funds on this?
Because they hate our country and want to destroy it.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
Vax mandates and US Citizenship is exactly the same thing!
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:08 pm to Strannix
quote:
Melt Day 3
No way dude. It's been way longer than that.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You are the one who brought up the term in the legal sense in order to make the distinction, not me.
It's somewhat irrelevant, but you can use either for this case.
quote:Where the child resides is where the parents reside and seems to mean that someone visiting a state and giving birth isn’t a citizen of that state. Why isn’t the same applied to the country?
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 6:28 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
This is why people hate you.
Because I point out their bad points specifically.
Then when they try to turn their bad points into a straw man, I correctly point out that I never said what they claim.
Then they get upset because they are relying on that straw man.
quote:
But sure you never said that he was opposed to determining intent
Legislative intent is one type of intent. Where did I say it's the ONLY form?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
“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.”
If it meant anyone and everyone born on US soil with zero stipulations, why even have the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? What is the intent of that addition? And why use the term “reside” if not meant to refer to the state where they legally live? In the commentary and discussions, it seems the original intent is clearly not meant to include temporary visitors.
If it meant anyone and everyone born on US soil with zero stipulations, why even have the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? What is the intent of that addition? And why use the term “reside” if not meant to refer to the state where they legally live? In the commentary and discussions, it seems the original intent is clearly not meant to include temporary visitors.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:45 pm to ell_13
quote:
If it meant anyone and everyone born on US soil with zero stipulations, why even have the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
Diplomats, primarily.
quote:
What is the intent of that addition?
To exclude diplomats.
quote:
And why use the term “reside” if not meant to refer to the state where they legally live?
Well the relationship between the states and federal government was a bit different in 1898.
Mandating that states accept the status of these citizens was important (especially given the larger context of the 14A and what it nullified in the Constitution. Hint: it is commonly referred to with a name including a fraction).
quote:
In the commentary and discussions,
I'm a textualist. I reject legislative intent like Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
So who on the SCOTUS holds the Constitution closer to the founders breast in your opinion?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Are they currently excluded? I thought you said this was just for newborns. So the parents status does matter or not?
To exclude diplomats.
quote:And freed slaves too right? So you do care about the intent.
Well the relationship between the states and federal government was a bit different in 1898. Mandating that states accept the status of these citizens was important (especially given the larger context of the 14A and what it nullified in the Constitution. Hint: it is commonly referred to with a name including a fraction).
quote:Havent we already been through this with Scalia proving he is an originalist and takes meaning based on what they meant at the time of writing?
I'm a textualist. I reject legislative intent like Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
This post was edited on 1/23/25 at 6:51 pm
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
To exclude diplomats.
Weird. If that were the only stipulation, you’d think they would have just come out and said it.
But it fits just as well when a foreign national, in violation of our immigration laws and subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country, shits a baby here.
Thank goodness for vague-arse founders!
Posted on 1/23/25 at 6:58 pm to goatmilker
quote:
So who on the SCOTUS holds the Constitution closer to the founders breast in your opinion?
The Founders have nothing to do with the 14A
Page 8 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News