- 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
The problem with lawyers and constitutional interpretations
Posted on 5/15/25 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 5/15/25 at 12:30 pm
Right now we're talking about Birthright citizenship but it really applies to pretty much everything in the Constitution
The annoying part about Birthright citizenship is that it's a great example of the problem with trying to write something down hoping people in the future won't be full of shite
No reasonable person actually believes that when they wrote the amendment they were talking about anybody who could drag their arse across the line and spit a baby out. Nobody. Nobody NOBODY fricking believes that. The people trying to sell that to you are just people who are trying to take advantage
What actually happened is it just didn't occur to the people writing the amendment to clarify until some future lawyer type tried to squeeze it in under the line.
Every single judge who has ever had an opinion on this has access to the writings of the people who originally put it in and access to the discussions that occurred. The same goes for every freaking thing in the Constitution. Yet inevitably and usually from the left we get people trying to read the Constitution as if it was written Yesterday by Anonymous people.
When you do that you don't really have a constitution. And can you imagine how fricking long the Constitution would be if you had to have written it with a thousand caveats anticipating what future unethical people would try to squeeze in?
The annoying part about Birthright citizenship is that it's a great example of the problem with trying to write something down hoping people in the future won't be full of shite
No reasonable person actually believes that when they wrote the amendment they were talking about anybody who could drag their arse across the line and spit a baby out. Nobody. Nobody NOBODY fricking believes that. The people trying to sell that to you are just people who are trying to take advantage
What actually happened is it just didn't occur to the people writing the amendment to clarify until some future lawyer type tried to squeeze it in under the line.
Every single judge who has ever had an opinion on this has access to the writings of the people who originally put it in and access to the discussions that occurred. The same goes for every freaking thing in the Constitution. Yet inevitably and usually from the left we get people trying to read the Constitution as if it was written Yesterday by Anonymous people.
When you do that you don't really have a constitution. And can you imagine how fricking long the Constitution would be if you had to have written it with a thousand caveats anticipating what future unethical people would try to squeeze in?
14
Posted on 5/15/25 at 12:32 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
It doesn't matter, Barrett will most certainly side with the liberals, along with Roberts, and likely Kavenaugh. It appears Trump made some shitty USSC picks. Picks i supported at the time.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 12:34 pm to BugAC
Same here.
Of course I supported bush too.
We are always about ten years behind.
Of course I supported bush too.
We are always about ten years behind.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 12:35 pm to BugAC
quote:
doesn't matter, Barrett will most certainly side with the liberals, along with Roberts, and likely Kavenaugh. It appears Trump made some shitty USSC picks. Picks i supported at the time.
You may well be right but this problem extends well beyond the current Birthright discussion. They do this shite with pretty much everything in the Constitution and hell they do it with laws also.
It's like attempting to write anything down and expect people in the future to follow it is fricking futile. They will just read it how they want to read it and act like that's what you meant. I'm convinced that if you had the right instructions on how to wash the dishes that were foolproof and wouldn't get changed in the future it would have to be 10,000 pages long
Posted on 5/15/25 at 12:36 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
Lawyers think that winning arguments is at the top of the food chain of life. Ten minutes after the argument, if you ask the lawyer what they were arguing about, they might not remember the topic, but they'll sure as frick remember if they thought they won the argument or not. Spoiler - they always think they've won.
Lawyers will be the reason for this nation's ultimate demise, and they'll be arguing amongst themselves over who's responsible, as the country burns down around them.
Lawyers will be the reason for this nation's ultimate demise, and they'll be arguing amongst themselves over who's responsible, as the country burns down around them.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 12:46 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
A controversial take perhaps, but there should be no interpretation of the Constitution. It was/is all laid bare in the Federalist Papers. The Constitution is very and specifically limited by design, and the absurdity of these Ivy League (Notre Dame notwithstanding), pretend oracles in black robes making a mockery of it, is a hanging offense in my opinion. The Founders clearly bestowed great power to the Executive, even a guy like Biden, and to have these jurists usurping the Execuitive - three pathetic, "empathetic" Nurse Ratchet women no less - is beyond the pale. Is nothing sacred?
Posted on 5/15/25 at 12:49 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
Now do the Second Amendment 
Posted on 5/15/25 at 12:51 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
No reasonable person actually believes that when they wrote the amendment they were talking about anybody who could drag their arse across the line and spit a baby out. Nobody. Nobody NOBODY fricking believes that. The people trying to sell that to you are just people who are trying to take advantage
What was the process for immigrating into the US in 1868?
Posted on 5/15/25 at 12:57 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
Since you made a separate thread, I'll include my resopnse
And reply to your reply:
You said this:
How is that NOT legislative history?
Hence why textualism has such a strong argument (in opposition to your argument above, mind you).
Scalia on legislative history:
"The text's the thing. We should therefore ignore drafting history without discussing it, instead of after discussing it."
Thomas has similar quotes.
If you want to read a textualist-originalist analysis, read Wong Kim Ark defining "subject to the jurisdiction of".
quote:
Textualists like Scalia and Thomas reject using legislative histories. And you're calling them "the left"
And reply to your reply:
quote:
You might want to read what I wrote again. I was referring to the Constitution
You said this:
quote:
The annoying part about Birthright citizenship is that it's a great example of the problem with trying to write something down hoping people in the future won't be full of shite
No reasonable person actually believes that when they wrote the amendment they were talking about anybody who could drag their arse across the line and spit a baby out. Nobody. Nobody fricking believes that.
What actually happened is it just didn't occur to the people writing the amendment to clarify until some future lawyer type tried to squeeze it in under the line.
Every single judge who has ever had an opinion on this has access to the writings of the people who originally put it in and access to the discussions that occurred. The same goes for every freaking thing in the Constitution. Yet inevitably and usually from the left we get people trying to read the Constitution as if it was written Yesterday by Anonymous people.
How is that NOT legislative history?
quote:
A constitution that just gets reread by whoever feels like fricking reading it isn't a constitution
Hence why textualism has such a strong argument (in opposition to your argument above, mind you).
quote:
You know that neither Scalia nor Thomas are playing the whole fast and loose with the English language game.
Scalia on legislative history:
"The text's the thing. We should therefore ignore drafting history without discussing it, instead of after discussing it."
Thomas has similar quotes.
If you want to read a textualist-originalist analysis, read Wong Kim Ark defining "subject to the jurisdiction of".
Posted on 5/15/25 at 1:00 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
There is a reason why lawyers have some of the lowest rates of respect and trust over almost any other profession.
This post was edited on 5/15/25 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 5/15/25 at 1:00 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:You generally had to be white and Protestant. Not a bad policy IMO. I'm Catholic so maybe I could get a waiver of some sort. Bill the Butcher might kill my ancestors though as we exited the boats.
What was the process for immigrating into the US in 1868?
Posted on 5/15/25 at 1:00 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
Are you a strict constructionist/ originalist or not?
Posted on 5/15/25 at 1:05 pm to boosiebadazz
Can you clarify the point you are trying to make?
I think it's obvious that the framers were concerned with codifying the right of individuals to bear arms to prevent tyranny of the government and for self-defense.
I think it's obvious that the framers were concerned with codifying the right of individuals to bear arms to prevent tyranny of the government and for self-defense.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Scalia on legislative history:
"The text's the thing. We should therefore ignore drafting history without discussing it, instead of after discussing it."
You think that one quote accurately represents his thinking on the topic?
Surely not.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 1:08 pm to Flats
He certainly meant what he said and reinforced the pov on many occasions.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 1:08 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
They do this shite with pretty much everything in the Constitution
They most assuredly do it, although it's a small minority of their rulings which are typically boring.
The problem is that there is, as of yet, no disincentive to make up whatever opinion they want and frame the law around it. If we want to change behavior a disincentive is going to be a requirement.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 1:09 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
The annoying part about Birthright citizenship is that it's a great example of the problem with trying to write something down hoping people in the future won't be full of shite
Lawyers are sophists unless they have morals. And usually, if they have morals, they don’t become lawyers.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 1:13 pm to VOR
quote:
He certainly meant what he said and reinforced the pov on many occasions.
And he also talked about historical context and how important it was.
Maybe, just maybe, his view on textualism was more nuanced than SFP would have us believe.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 1:15 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
I think the system works. There are obviously problems, sometimes more severe than at other times - but the Constitution works.
I think these so-called Constitutional crises are good. Each branch should fight for their power, just like each State and even local jurisdiction should fight for its power. That keeps sides in check.
The biggest problem, imo, is the citizenry. The less educated our citizenry is to how our system is designed makes it more likely that federalism and separation of powers can be negated.
I think these so-called Constitutional crises are good. Each branch should fight for their power, just like each State and even local jurisdiction should fight for its power. That keeps sides in check.
The biggest problem, imo, is the citizenry. The less educated our citizenry is to how our system is designed makes it more likely that federalism and separation of powers can be negated.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 1:18 pm to Flats
quote:
Maybe, just maybe, his view on textualism was more nuanced than SFP would have us believe.
Or maybe Scalia is just another lawyer who uses whatever framework they need in the moment to win a particular argument. And then they become strict whatever-else-ists in the next argument.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News