- 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 4:30 pm to Mr.Perfect
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:30 pm to Mr.Perfect
quote:
None of that is comparable
It's a literal 1:1 comparison
quote:
Yea all three are totally all equally vague
To argue, within the Constitutional analysis framing, that "militia" is less vague than "jurisdiction' requires a level of dishonesty and/or ignorance I didn't think was possible.
Heller is Wong Kim Ark on steroids, with less direct historical support.
However, both are textualist in nature relying on analyses based on how the terms were used at the time of writing.
0
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:31 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Congress has to change the law.
Congress can't just change the law either. It has to be a change to the Constitution.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:39 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Yep. Just like the the Founders never intended for the 1A to protect electronic communication, the 2A to protect semi-auto firearm and the 5th amendement never considered encryption. Pretty much the entire thing could be declared invalid at this point.
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.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 4:41 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:40 pm to SirWinston
quote:
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.
She will vote against ending it but because she will say it needs a constitutional amendment, not because she’s a woman.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:42 pm to lionward2014
quote:
not because she’s a woman.
And not because she adopted black children born in the third world.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:That is what the Burger Court said regarding privacy and abortion. It's all in the text. Screw the ORIGINAL intent. We'll use the text to create our own intent.
To a textual analysis, that's irrelevant.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:54 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
That is what the Burger Court said regarding privacy and abortion. It's all in the text. Screw the ORIGINAL intent. We'll use the text to create our own intent.
This is the philosophy of Scalia.
quote:
“The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy. We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators.”
That's a literal quote from Scalia.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 4:58 pm to lionward2014
quote:
She will vote against ending it but because she will say it needs a constitutional amendment, not because she’s a woman
So says you. Shes voted against AF before on multiple emotional issues that she should have sided with constitutionally on past precedent.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 5:10 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
the the Founders never intended for the 1A to protect electronic communication, the 2A to protect semi-auto firearm and the 5th amendement never considered encryption
not so fast there -
I sincerely believe the constitution deals with common sense rights - and NOT the evolution of words - especially when you consider the atrocities the modern leftists have inflicted on the language.
The first amendment protects your right to express your opinions - they had no intention to restrict the methodology which might evolve in doing so.
The second amendment protects your right to defend yourself - not only from others wishing you harm, but also as a buttress against the desire of an over-eager government to render you helpless. (which I think was their primary intent) I do not see their opposition to semi-auto firearms - or even automatic firearms, although I actually personally support not making those available to the general public.
I don't know of anything in the 5th amendment related to restricting you from using any sort of encryption in your communication.
Nothing you have mentioned has anything to do with the topic of the OP
Posted on 12/5/25 at 5:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:and if associated with the term originalism, it is literally not applicable to issues of broad legislative consensus. Scalia's concern was that legislation is like sausage making. It can get messy. Legislators often exit the process believing to have forced agreement in an area, which in fact they have not. Appeal through their interest groups to SCOTUS might give such folks a second bite at the apple.
That's a literal quote from Scalia.
Words and text can be interpreted variably. If SCOTUS wants to legislate from the bench, implying superiority to the other branches, "interpretation" of legislative text, clearly outside of the authors' originalism, is the path to do that.
We have seen Roberts do exactly that when he completely jumped the shark in NFIB v. Sebelius.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 5:17 pm to ChineseBandit58
I agree with you, but we don’t have common sense.
So we will have to make an amendment saying temporary travelers don’t have birthright citizenship.
It’s dumb as frick you’d have to spell something like that out.
So we will have to make an amendment saying temporary travelers don’t have birthright citizenship.
It’s dumb as frick you’d have to spell something like that out.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 5:26 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:Right. But there’s no way the founders could have envisioned the “circus” of modern day mass communications by social media, mass shootings, or the ability to keep one’s “papers” private from the government.
I sincerely believe the constitution deals with common sense rights - and NOT the evolution of words - especially when you consider the atrocities the modern leftists have inflicted on the language.
quote:The argument I was responding to was that the authors of the birthright amendment didn’t anticipate its consequences in modern society, so it must be invalid. I just applied that same concept to the other amendments.
Nothing you have mentioned has anything to do with the topic of the OP
While their lackof foresight is likely true, We have a process for redress. But it’s not an executive order.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 5:28 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 5:38 pm to Taxing Authority
I also find it odd that the same administration that says states should be cooperating to detain illegals (they should!), is simultaneously arguing that those illegals are not under the jurisdiction of those states. So instead of sanctuary cities, everywhere should be a sanctuary except from the feds.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 5:39 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 5:52 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
I sincerely believe the constitution deals with common sense rights - and NOT the evolution of words -
Then you should like Wong Kim Ark
Posted on 12/5/25 at 5:54 pm to retired_tiger
You do realize that their father is a natural born citizen, correct?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 5:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
. If SCOTUS wants to legislate from the bench, implying superiority to the other branches, "interpretation" of legislative text, clearly outside of the authors' originalism, is the path to do that.
This is a criticism of Scalia, directly. And old Thomas.
It seems the circle of rejecting Textualism is being done by more than just Clarence Thomas
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:01 pm to BigJim
quote:
I think birthright citizenship is a problem.
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 6:04 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
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.
THIS is "legislating from the bench"
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
I can't wait until you end up eating more crow on this one also.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:14 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
I can't wait until you end up eating more crow on this one also.
Also implies another case. Curious what you're referencing.
Page 8 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News