- 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: SCOTUS will hear Birthright Citizenship case
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:51 pm to retired_tiger
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:51 pm to retired_tiger
quote:
0
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
Constitution is merely a suggestion to this administration
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Action (or inaction) of Congress, the Executive, or both, doesn't change the Constitution.
Nope, it does not. Fortunately, now the courts will decide on the interpretation of a living document.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 8:04 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:01 pm to crazyLSUstudent
quote:
Constitution is merely a suggestion to this administration
It’s Friday night. You’re on TD being fake and gay. Go do something.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:05 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:Was the 2A intended to facilitate mass shootings?
It was never intended to be a gimmick to allow masses of people entry into our country. Maybe they will see it as clearly as I do.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:10 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:Get ready to lose your 1A and 2A rights.
The meaning needs to be spiffied up for the 21st century.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:12 pm to Jbird
quote:Did AR15s or electronic mass communication exist when the constitution was written?
Did mass transit internationally exist?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:13 pm to Warboo
quote:Whose fault is that?
The amendment process was put into place for a functioning Congress. We have not had a functioning Congress since the early nineties. I would argue since 1963.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:14 pm to dafif
quote:You sure? So you think that if an illegal drives drunk, kills a family, they should not be subject to being charged for DWI? You sure you want that?
It is hard to believe that an illegal is "subject to the jurisdiction there of" when you look at each state resident laws
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:17 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Get ready to lose your 1A and 2A rights.
Heller case is a fairly recent ruling. Chalk one up for 2A.
Let's see how they rule on 14.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:19 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:Out of date. Didn’t take into modern consequences
Heller case is a fairly recent ruling. Chalk one up for 2A.
of the 2A.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:20 pm to Taxing Authority
Ah yes so aircraft are just like muskets!
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:22 pm to cajunandy
SCOTUS doesn't have the power to nullify constitutional amendments. Try as they might, any action they take here will be walked back within a decade. Personally I feel anyone born here shouldn't be given citizenship if the mother is here illegally. But thats not how the constitution puts it.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:24 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Out of date. Didn’t take into modern consequences
quote:
of the 2A.
You argue for arguments sake. You know 2A is settled for your lifetime. But 14 may not be settled because the Supremes took it. We will find out. I will carry on one way or the other.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:36 pm to dafif
quote:
It is hard to believe that an illegal is "subject to the jurisdiction there of" when you look at each state resident laws
If you get hit by a car being driven by an illegal can you sue them?
If an illegal kills someone does the state have the ability to arrest and prosecute them?
If an illegal is caught by ICE do they have the ability to put them into removal proceedings?
If the answer to any, or all, of those questions is “yes” then they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Words have meanings. If enough people don’t like it, change it. The argument “we cannot get enough support to pass an amendment so we need SCOTUS to change it for us” is exactly why amending the Constitution is so hard. The Founders were smart enough to not make mob rule the rule of the land.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:41 pm to lionward2014
quote:
Words have meanings. If enough people don’t like it, change it. The argument “we cannot get enough support to pass an amendment so we need SCOTUS to change it for us” is exactly why amending the Constitution is so hard. The Founders were smart enough to not make mob rule the rule of the land.
Then why did they take the case? Why go through the motions? Why not let any lower court ruling prevail?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:41 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Whose fault is that?
Our government which created entities that now enslave us to the ideals they see fit.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:43 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
Then why did they take the case? Why go through the motions? Why not let any lower court ruling prevail?
Because it’s a massive political hot button issue. It’s an easy way to bury it and clarify. There’s a reason they took it straight from the district court.
ETA: How many 2nd Amendment cases are there to discuss “shall not be infringed?” How many 1st Amendment cases are there? How many cases are there discussing “cruel and unusual punishment?”
ETA pt2: They took it straight from the district court too IMO to avoid the shite storm of a circuit split. Could you imagine the chaos of the 9th saying the EO is wrong and the 5th upholding it? The odds are small but taking it up quickly and directly makes the odds 0% of .1%.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 8:54 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:45 pm to the808bass
quote:
It wasn’t incorrect when the 14th was passed.
Exactly.
If you fell out of your mama on US ground but a foreign government could claim you as a citizen, The Prime jurisdiction that you were subject to was that foreign jurisdiction.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 8:55 pm to lionward2014
quote:
Because it’s a massive political hot button issue. It’s an easy way to bury it and clarify. There’s a reason they took it straight from the district court.
Yes, because we as a country are getting ever closer to a breaking point that started in Obama's second term when they told him, Barak, I know you said you were constitutionally bound in the first term to following the laws in regards to DACA but, we have this gray area in the 14th amendment in that you can open the border to illegal immigration and then the children born to the illegals are cemented here along with their families if we leave them alone. And we can just say "look at what the 14th Amendment says" to drown them out. And no, it didn't matter that indigenous Americans didn't get the benefit. That's okay. But they can be sued for negligence and tried for murder in our courts. And then just think how we can used these people to retain congressional districts and to use as needed for elections.
Page 10 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News