- 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 1/23/25 at 7:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
Not what I asked but you know that.
I'm actually asking you who on the SCOTUS today aligns most with your views on Constitutional law.
I'm actually asking you who on the SCOTUS today aligns most with your views on Constitutional law.
1
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:06 pm to ell_13
quote:
Are they currently excluded? I thought you said this was just for newborns.
Both the diplomats and their children born here are also not subject to our jurisdiction.
quote:
And freed slaves too right? So you do care about the intent.
Intent has nothing to do with this.
That's the effects of applying the text. States couldn't reject slaves being citizens of that state (and enjoying the rights therein).
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?
Scalia rejected legislative intent.
The examples trying to counter this claim have nothing to do with legislative intent, and strengthen my argument and that of Wong Kim Ark, who did a textual analysis via historical review of English common law and the cases in the US prior to the amendment. That is exactly what you're supposed to do.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:12 pm to goatmilker
quote:
I'm actually asking you who on the SCOTUS today aligns most with your views on Constitutional law.
Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
Thanks!
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:14 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Weird. If that were the only stipulation, you’d think they would have just come out and said it.
There is a 2nd exception, but it's just not relevant today.
It was much more relevant when the US faced potential invasions by stronger nations.
quote:
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.
It does not.
From the other thread
quote:
WKA is clear there are only 2 exceptions to birthright citizenship:
1. Children of diplomats
2. Children born in areas of hostile occupation (which was about Indians and the potential for another War of 1812, but is not relevant today as there hasn't been an occupation on US soil since the War of 1812).
Which of those 2 classes do illegal aliens fall under?
quote:
Which of the 2 above classes does that "Mexican girl who gives birth on the north bank of the Rio Grande" fall within?
Is she a diplomat? No
Is that area of the US occupied by a foreign nation where the birth occurred? No
LINK
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
You can stop pretending that there’s not a healthy thoughtful debate about this among constitutional scholars now.
We have Google too.
We have Google too.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:20 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
You can stop pretending that there’s not a healthy thoughtful debate about this among constitutional scholars now.
There is no honest discussion that children of illegals are outside of our current law. The law is clear that their children are citizens if born here as they're not within the two exceptions of Wong Kim Ark.
There is a debate about overruling our current law, primarily based on "Living Constitution" arguments.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There is a debate about overruling our current law, primarily based on "Living Constitution" arguments.
The Constitution was last amended in 1992, and we’re not supposed to have this conversation, and potentially review this, why? Seems each generation has brought their concerns forward.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
It is if they are determined by the social compact not to be. Wong Kim Ark was an interpretation based on English Common Law. Laws dealing with ju soli subjectship, not citizenship. IE lifelong allegiance to the crown of the empire- a concept obviously rejected by our founders. SCOTUS got it wrong on Wong.
There’s a case here. To pretend otherwise is simple-minded
There’s a case here. To pretend otherwise is simple-minded
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
One says a healthy honest debate...
One says "if honest".
Interesting use of words carefully crafted.
One says "if honest".
Interesting use of words carefully crafted.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:43 pm to lsuguy84
quote:
The Constitution was last amended in 1992, and we’re not supposed to have this conversation, and potentially review this, why?
What does the date of the last amendment have to do with this?
quote:
Seems each generation has brought their concerns forward.
Not in this area
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:45 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Wong Kim Ark was an interpretation based on English Common Law.
That's how we're supposed to analyze the constitution. Textualism.
quote:
Laws dealing with ju soli subjectship, not citizenship.
No they specifically dealt with citizenship.
quote:
a concept obviously rejected by our founders.
Our founders have nothing to do with the 14A. The 14A changed our Constitution from what the founders intended. That's what amendments do.
quote:
SCOTUS got it wrong on Wong.
As I said
quote:
There is no honest discussion that children of illegals are outside of our current law. The law is clear that their children are citizens if born here as they're not within the two exceptions of Wong Kim Ark.
There is a debate about overruling our current law, primarily based on "Living Constitution" arguments.
quote:
There’s a case here.
There is a case to ignore textualism and make the Constitution a Living Document, yes. I never said otherwise.
That will be terrible for anyone on the conservative side of the aisle. Leftists will give up birthright citizenship in 2 seconds in exchange for the Constitution becoming a living document and textualism dying.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:46 pm to goatmilker
quote:
One says a healthy honest debate...
One says "if honest".
Interesting use of words carefully crafted.
It's actually even talking about 2 different things.
Ultimately he agreed with me that there is no honest argument under our current law and the USSC has to override our current law and replace it.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:48 pm to lsuguy84
Fun fact: the original 14th did NOT include the jurisdiction thereof qualifier. After weeks of fierce debate, the committee on reconstruction demanded this second qualifier be added.
Apparently only for diplomats?
Apparently only for diplomats?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
Almost made 443k come on Franni you can do it!
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
Your “living document” comment sounds like a way to diminish the fact this is going to be a larger conversation soon. It’s been amended 27 times. It seems like you don’t want this debate to take place because you’ve made up your mind. On the surface, it looks like this is going to be re-visited.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:50 pm to lsuguy84
Liberals will make the “living constitution” argument when it suits them. When it comes to the 14th, they will lock tf in on literal text.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:51 pm to lsuguy84
quote:
Your “living document” comment sounds like a way to diminish the fact this is going to be a larger conversation soon.
That's exactly what the "living document" people love. Having "conversations" about contemporary societal issues and bemoaning the fact that it's hard to amend the Constitution, so we should have the Supreme Court legislate from the bench instead.
quote:
It’s been amended 27 times. It seems
That is the solution here.
quote:
It seems like you don’t want this debate to take place
I'm just correcting bad and dishonest arguments on the issue.
That isn't silencing people from continuing to make bad and dishonest arguments.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:52 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Liberals will make the “living constitution” argument when it suits them.
So do "conservatives", apparently.
Like I've said, this is the craziest political 180 of the MAGA movement. I never thought I'd see them argue for a living Constitution or reject Scalia.
quote:
When it comes to the 14th, they will lock tf in on literal text.
I'm consistent in my analysis
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That will be terrible for anyone on the conservative side of the aisle. Leftists will give up birthright citizenship in 2 seconds in exchange for the Constitution becoming a living document and textualism dying
I jumped in late, so I see the point you’re trying to make here, and likely in regards to the 1st and 2nd? I think they will have a taller hill to climb, but it definitely could boomerang back and that bridge will be crossed if we get there.
Page 9 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News