- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Who determines “jurisdiction” in the 14th amendment? The president?
Posted on 12/10/24 at 2:17 pm to Salviati
Posted on 12/10/24 at 2:17 pm to Salviati
quote:SFP made a similar statement. But common law really isn't directly determinative of citizenship issues. Those are typically governed by constitutional or statutory law. Right? There are various legal contexts where domicile, residence, or business may indirectly become relevant in citizenship determinations under U.S. law.
common law, does not consider the parents' United States domicile, residence, or business to be relevant.
Ultimately this will require either
1) A Constitutional Amendment modifying the 14th Amendment, or
2) A Supreme Court decision to reinterpret the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause.
While we all agree the former would be ideal, you, SFP, and others address the latter as an impossibility. I'm simply calling that slam-dunk mentality, the same one which preceded Dobbs in many cases, presumptuous.
2
Posted on 12/10/24 at 2:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:or like SCOTUS identifying a fine, then redefining it as a tax, in spite of Congress specifically identifying it as a financial penalty, and not a tax? Like that?
It would be the same argument as Congress banning "Boom Sticks" and defining them to be, effectively, firearms, then people claiming "well the Constitution is silent to a regulation of 'boom sticks'
or like rationalizing the legalization of abortion for an obviously gravid parturient based on a Constitution right to privacy, while finding the same right not to extend to women in their restrooms, locker rooms, or showers? Like that?
This post was edited on 12/10/24 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 12/10/24 at 2:42 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
While we all agree the former would be ideal, you, SFP, and others address the latter as an impossibility.
Nobody said it's impossible for the court to reverse precedent.
You've been trying to argue the precedent isn't what it clearly is, which is a completely different argument.
Posted on 12/10/24 at 2:43 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
or like SCOTUS identifying a fine, then redefining it as a tax, in spite of Congress specifically identifying it as a financial penalty, and not a tax? Like that?
No. You mixed up the parties and didn't describe what happened to reflect reality.
quote:
or like rationalizing the legalization of abortion for an obviously gravid parturient based on a Constitution right to privacy, while finding the same right not to extend to women in their restrooms, locker rooms, or showers?
Nope. No legislation was even involved in that scenario.
Posted on 12/10/24 at 3:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No. You mixed up the parties and didn't describe what happened to reflect reality.
For a bright guy you do post some dumb stuff.
Posted on 12/10/24 at 3:40 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
For a bright guy you do post some dumb stuff.
quote:
or like SCOTUS identifying a fine
When did the supreme court "identify a fine"?
quote:
then redefining it as a tax
Per their precedent, it was a tax.
quote:
, in spite of Congress specifically identifying it as a financial penalty, and not a tax
Irrelevant
Again, nothing in that hypo (even with the non-reflections of reality) works with my hypo. You weren't even using an example with a stated Constitutional right, or any right, let alone legislation trying to supplant Constitutional language.
Posted on 12/10/24 at 3:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Foundational weakness is what gets precedents overturned.
You've been trying to argue the precedent isn't what it clearly is
That's what has been identified here.
You're arguing the foundational logic for the precedent here is rock solid, so much so that wholly different considerations are inapplicable. If so, BRC will be maintained in a 9-0 beatdown. Maybe that's where we're headed.
Posted on 12/10/24 at 3:57 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:NC_Tigah - Please don't take my quote out of context. I didn't say this issue is governed directly by common law. I said the issue is governed by the Constitution, and the SCOTUS's analysis of the birthright citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is based on common law. Accordingly, common law controls the issue, but only because the Supreme Court properly relied upon common law in its analysis of the clause.quote:SFP made a similar statement. But common law really isn't directly determinative of citizenship issues. Those are typically governed by constitutional or statutory law. Right?
common law, does not consider the parents' United States domicile, residence, or business to be relevant.
quote:Not under United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and that decision is strongly supported by current SCOTUS doctrine and common law.
There are various legal contexts where domicile, residence, or business may indirectly become relevant in citizenship determinations under U.S. law.
quote:The Roe v. Wade (1973) holding was not based upon Constitutional text or rock-solid common law. Accordingly, one can understand how the current textualist-heavy SCOTUS overturned it. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), on the other hand, is strongly supported by textualist and originalist analyses and long-standing common law.
While we all agree the former would be ideal, you, SFP, and others address the latter as an impossibility. I'm simply calling that slam-dunk mentality, the same one which preceded Dobbs in many cases, presumptuous.
Could it be overturned? Sure, the SCOTUS can SCOTUS however it wants to SCOTUS. But the opinion overturning it will not be based on textualism or originalism, even if the author says it is.
Posted on 12/10/24 at 4:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Really?
When did the supreme court "identify a fine"?
Seriously?
SCOTUS identified a fine when it read the ACA legislation.
At question was the penalty and/or fine for not having health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Politics led Dems to refuse to call that fine a tax.
Roberts worked hard behind the scenes with Lib Justices to contort around the unconstitutionality of a penalty-enforced mandate. He upheld the individual mandate by interpreting the penalty as a tax, rather than a fine. It allowed the federal government to impose the penalty under its taxing power, which the Supreme Court found to be within the scope of Congress's authority.
quote:
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. While only four Justices found its requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance (26 U.S.C. 5000A) constitutional under the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Roberts found it constitutional by reasonably characterizing it as a tax. Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness." The penalty is to be paid to the IRS, along with the individual’s income taxes.
LINK
Posted on 12/10/24 at 4:21 pm to Salviati
quote:
NC_Tigah - Please don't take my quote out of context. I didn't say this issue is governed directly by common law. I said the issue is governed by the Constitution
quote:It's a messageboard not a legal document. If you didn't mean what you wrote because you were multitasking, left out a qualifier, or you weren't otherwise clear, no biggie. That's why I was polite in the question.
The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), like the common law, does not consider the parents' United States domicile, residence, or business to be relevant.
But to be clear, nothing was taken out of context.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News