- 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 3:05 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:05 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Yeah, I’m catching up and see that others have raised this issue. This will likely be one or the rare decisions I read all the way through.
0
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
Im literally telling you exactly that. On the first page you started arguing when someone said SCOTUS could DEFINE JURISDICTION.
Which we all agree is only in the 14th.
You are the one why said they cant and to apply that logic to the 1st and 2nd
Now you are just arguing in circles
Which we all agree is only in the 14th.
You are the one why said they cant and to apply that logic to the 1st and 2nd
Now you are just arguing in circles
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:07 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Calling it now… they side with the Administration.
Hope you’re right, but I’m not optimistic. Like someone said above…….feelers.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's what Amendments are for
True = that is what amendment are 'for'
you tell me - what what this amendment "for" =
1) it was written specifically to address the situation wrt the fact that a large number of prior slaves had been granted freedom from slavery. They tried to address that specific problem and also make some point about native Americans.
2) There was not a moment of debate about how some Somalian might tiptoe across the rio grande and drop a kid who would then be entitled to sit on his arse for the rest of his life being supported by the American citizen taxpayers, as well as allowing his parents and siblings to be here as well.
There is NO 'common sense' argument for this - none.
And if there is one - they could apply for accelerated review of their naturalization process - to jump ahead of the thousands of foreigners who are trying to do it RIGHT.
There IS a process for this - Anyone who wants to 'jump the line' is just wrong. period.
Common sense is not so common amongst certain democrat intellectuals.
Our constitution was written for people with common sense - for a population possessing integrity.
period.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:09 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
consensus view of the 14th Amendment.
Is retarded.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:15 pm to greygoose
quote:
Entering this country as a citizen of another nation, popping out a kid, and granting the child citizenship, was NOT the intent of the amendment.
And, especially, when enterinh illegally.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:15 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I don't think I agree with SlowFlowPro that this is some sort of meaningless distinction.
It's more that it would imply Congress can usurp the Constitution by creating classes of people who don't fall within its power.
That's ultimately where the "illegal aliens" argument ends up, because that distinction is purely legislative and not Constitutional.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:16 pm to Mr.Perfect
quote:
Im literally telling you exactly that. On the first page you started arguing when someone said SCOTUS could DEFINE JURISDICTION.
You're mis-stating the post to which I replied, which was
quote:
Until Congress steps in the executive branch should have full authority to define “jurisdiction”.
Congress and the executive =/= SCOTUS
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:18 pm to cajunandy
Birthright citizenship should have ceased 100 years ago. 
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:18 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I’ll bet we get a Thomas majority opinion stating the 14th was only for slaves and not what we see today.
It's the logical outcome based on the congressional debate at the time and the words of the man who introduced the 14th amendment in the Senate.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:19 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
1) it was written specifically to address the situation wrt the fact that a large number of prior slaves had been granted freedom from slavery. They tried to address that specific problem and also make some point about native Americans.
Then it should have been written using terms specific to slavery, like the 13th OR 15h Amendments.
quote:
2) There was not a moment of debate about how some Somalian might tiptoe across the rio grande and drop a kid who would then be entitled to sit on his arse for the rest of his life being supported by the American citizen taxpayers, as well as allowing his parents and siblings to be here as well.
Again, not a Constitutional concern, and you're arguing for a Living Document to cure future failures of Congess and removing the discussion from the Constitution.
quote:
There is NO 'common sense' argument for this - none.
"Common sense" is a crutch for those who can't rely on facts and/or logic
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:23 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
I’ll bet we get a Thomas majority opinion
quote:
It's the logical outcome based on the congressional debate at the time and the words of the man who introduced the 14th amendment in the Senate.
As I said, this would confirm Thomas's now complete rejection of textualism and the analysis both he and Scalia relied on previously.
Thomas wrote a BUNC of opinions specifically rejecting looking at legislative intent.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:36 pm to Cosmo
quote:
Sadly think it will be 5-4 with roberts and barrett flipping because “feelings”
100%.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Until Congress steps in the executive branch should have full authority to define “jurisdiction”.
The above was posted by Sass
To which you replied
quote:
This makes, literally, no sense. Apply this "logic" to the 2A or even 1A
Your statement that it makes no sense is beyond ridiculous because the word jurisdiction exists in the 14 and does not exist in the 1st or 2nd
You are the one somehow bringing in the 1st and 2nd into a discussion on the world jurisdiction. So if there is anything confusing here, you sir created it with the absence of rational thought
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:44 pm to Cosmo
quote:
Sadly think it will be 5-4 with roberts and barrett flipping because “feelings”
This is my initial thought as well. But, after seeing how the immigration laws have been ignored, abused, and led to mass corruption across all government, those two may see the constitutional threat to the country by allowing the status quo to pervail. They may just stick to the actual written words, or lack of actual written words to rule with Trump.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:44 pm to Mr.Perfect
quote:
The above was posted by Sass
Which is specifically not this:
quote:
when someone said SCOTUS could DEFINE JURISDICTION.
quote:
Your statement that it makes no sense is beyond ridiculous because the word jurisdiction exists in the 14 and does not exist in the 1st or 2nd
The specific word chosen is irrelevant, as we're discussing if the Supreme Court or Congress/Executive get to define the words.
You're arguing in circles b/c you missed the obvious point.
quote:
You are the one somehow bringing in the 1st and 2nd into a discussion on the world jurisdiction.
Until Congress steps in, the executive should have full authority to define "militia"
Until Congress steps in, the executive should have full authority to define "press"
Until Congress steps in, the executive should have full authority to define "religion"
Hopefully the obvious point is obvious now.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The obvious point being the present circus was never intended in the law. It is a product of interpretive semantics. It's fair and logical to review those interpretations based on the modern environment.
Hopefully the obvious point is obvious now.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
His implication is that since they're both not white and originally born in the 3rd world, she won't vote for the admin.
He's channeling Nick Fuentes
And yet everybody knows that my point is correct and that she will 100% vote against ending birthright citizenship because she's a bleeding heart woman.
Ya'll just feel "icky" saying it, so you downvote me. Stunning and brave.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
None of that is comparable
“Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof”
“Militia”
“Religion”
Yea all three are totally all equally vague
“Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof”
“Militia”
“Religion”
Yea all three are totally all equally vague
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:27 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The obvious point being the present circus was never intended in the law. I
To a textual analysis, that's irrelevant.
Had they intended something else, they failed at using the right words, which is kind of important for a system built on language.
quote:
. It is a product of interpretive semantics
The "interpretive semantics" of Scalia and old Thomas. We used to celebrate and promote that interpretive philosophy.
quote:
It's fair and logical to review those interpretations based on the modern environment.
"Living Constitution" analysis. We used to criticize and deride that interpretive philosophy.
Page 7 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News