- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
Who determines “jurisdiction” in the 14th amendment? The president?
Posted on 12/8/24 at 10:53 pm
Posted on 12/8/24 at 10:53 pm
quote:
Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
12
Posted on 12/8/24 at 10:56 pm to GumboPot
The Supreme Court in the 1800s already did
Posted on 12/8/24 at 10:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Supreme Court in the 1800s already did
So who determines jurisdiction?
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:02 pm to GumboPot
It's the whole phrase
And the Supreme Court gives the final interpretation of it (and did)
quote:
subject to the jurisdiction thereof
And the Supreme Court gives the final interpretation of it (and did)
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:03 pm to GumboPot
It would take a constitutional amendment that will never happen.
It should be amended to say that anyone birthed by someone here illegally is not protected by birthright citizenship
It should be amended to say that anyone birthed by someone here illegally is not protected by birthright citizenship
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:13 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Reside: Have one’s Permanent Home in a particular place
If their parents do not have a permanent residence in this country, they do not have a permanent residency in this country upon their birth. Thus they are not the citizens of a state, nor of the United States.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
and Supreme Court in 2025 can change it
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:22 pm to Tiger in Austin
quote:
and Supreme Court in 2025 can change it
Absolutely. Roe v Wade was settled law by most. But the USSC revisited it and overturned it.
They can do the same with anchor babies as well. It just has to be the right court and right case.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:32 pm to stout
quote:
It would take a constitutional amendment that will never happen.
EO is sufficient
Posted on 12/8/24 at 11:36 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
EO is sufficient
It wouldn’t be. Separation of powers. If there was an EO, I don’t think that it alone could serve to overturn the prior decision. I think SCOTUS would say it’s not possible to override standing decision of the court if there was an EO, but would fall short of making a decision on the merits
Posted on 12/9/24 at 12:34 am to MintBerry Crunch
quote:
It wouldn’t be.
It would be.
quote:
Separation of powers.
Anchor babies are unconstitutional and unlawful and go against the will of the American People. There is no separation of powers issue here.
quote:
If there was an EO, I don’t think that it alone could serve to overturn the prior decision.
Not a decision. It's a footnote. That is where all of this comes from. A footnote. It has no weight and no power. It's not precedent. It's not a holding. It's not dicta. It's a footnote.
quote:
I think SCOTUS would say it’s not possible to override standing decision of the court if there was an EO, but would fall short of making a decision on the merits
It's a footnote and it has no connection to the will of the People or the intent behind the 14th Amendment.
American citizenship is the most important thing we all possess, and the American People have never endorsed the idea that you can invade our nation, squat down, push out a baby, and that baby has American citizenship bestowed upon it. This idea is lunacy.
Such a policy is national suicide and a complete abdication of sovereignty. No SCOTUS justice or even the Congress has that power. The People determine the fate of this nation and the People have NEVER endorsed this idiotic concept.
Write the EO and be done with it. Let the litigation commence and tell every plaintiff to pound sand. Our #1 national interest is survival on our own terms and Anchor Baby citizenship is a direct assault on that interest. We are under no obligation to honor this insane idea that never originated from the People or received the endorsement of the People.
This is all you need:
EO ON ANCHOR BABY CITIZENSHIP
The intent of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was not to provide citizenship to people born to mothers that are illegally present in the United States.
This practice of granting citizenship to "Anchor Babies" originates from a footnote in a Supreme Court decision. It's not a law and it was never the intent of the 14th Amendment or the will of the American People.
Effective immediately, "Anchor Baby" citizenship is hereby denied as it is unlawful. Furthermore, the United States government is entitled to remove and deport anyone in the country under the auspices of "Anchor Baby" citizenship.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:46 am to POTUS2024
quote:
Anchor babies are unconstitutional and unlawful and go against the will of the American People
This is pretty clear. There are no exceptions or qualifiers mentioned. All persons. If it goes against the will of the people, then there is a process to change the constitution.
quote:
Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
You either believe the constitution is to be interpreted exactly as written or not. It's ideologically inconsistent to pick and choose when we interpret the constition as it is written and when we choose to interpret it as we want to to fit our worldview. I certainly wish it restricted birthright citizenship to babies of... actual citizens, but the reality is it doesn't.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:05 am to POTUS2024
How you figure? If you are not working for an executive branch agency or the armed forces, an EO is essentially toilet paper. State agencies that issue birth certificates are not subject to an EO, nor are hospitals that report births.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:41 am to KiwiHead
quote:
How you figure? If you are not working for an executive branch agency or the armed forces, an EO is essentially toilet paper. State agencies that issue birth certificates are not subject to an EO, nor are hospitals that report births.
Clearly what needs to happen is an individual hospital chooses to not cooperate with an illegal family for acquiring a new born’s birth certificate. This could easily be arranged.
Then the fallout cascades through the courts and then is picked up by the SCOTUS. Because their past rulings on birthright citizenship pertained to workers lawfully permitted, and I understand that at the time that was not the same situation as now, but it also wasn’t a situation where they were clearly illegal as we see now either.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:43 am to Tiger in Austin
quote:
and Supreme Court in 2025 can change it
Yes, but that's irrelevant to his question.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:44 am to POTUS2024
quote:
Not a decision. It's a footnote. That is where all of this comes from. A footnote. It has no weight and no power. It's not precedent. It's not a holding. It's not dicta. It's a footnote.
You're wrong. I posted the case that is a decision that explains why you're wrong and is not a footnote.
You just keep repeating Ann Coulter's grifter stupidity without looking into the actual case law (even when told what case to read directly).
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:47 am to OBReb6
quote:
Because their past rulings on birthright citizenship pertained to workers lawfully permitted, and I understand that at the time that was not the same situation as now, but it also wasn’t a situation where they were clearly illegal as we see now either.
If you read Wong Kim Ark, this is a distinction without a difference.
Read that case and its historical and textual analysis of "subject to the jurisdiction" and try to exclude illegal immigrants (you can't logically). Just because the immigration status of the time it was written differs than today doesn't change that analytical framework. Nothing about the change requires a new ruling.
Now, can the case be overturned? Sure, but that's not this specific discussion.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:39 am to POTUS2024
quote:
It would take a constitutional amendment that will never happen.
EO is sufficient
Kamala said an EO would be sufficient to take guns and many 2A defenders said the opposite so why would an EO be sufficient for the 14th?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:45 am to GumboPot
quote:
jurisdiction
At its most basic, jurisdiction is the area a government can reliably control by force.
Used in a sentence:
The jurisdiction of the Assad government changed radically this past week.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:45 am to OBReb6
quote:
learly what needs to happen is an individual hospital chooses to not cooperate with an illegal family for acquiring a new born’s birth certificate. This could easily be arranged.
Then the fallout cascades through the courts and then is picked up by the SCOTUS. Because their past rulings on birthright citizenship pertained to workers lawfully permitted, and I understand that at the time that was not the same situation as now, but it also wasn’t a situation where they were clearly illegal as we see now either.
Better yet a state could pass a law that would force hospitals to categorize anchor babies as citizens as of the birthing parents, not the U.S.
This would, I think, cause a conflict in "jurisdiction".
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News