- 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
This is all you need to know about the SCOTUS hearing on birthright citizenship.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:40 am
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:40 am
From Google AI.......,
All the BS interpretation of the 14th amendment to allow the mass illegal invasion of the US comes from the enemies within the US. The biggest flaw with the constitution was the omission of reasonable guardrails to protect the American people from the "enemies from within" to use the constitution against the citizens of the US, which is exactly what you are listening to today from the liberal justices and quite frankly a couple of the "conservative justices during this SCOTUS hearing today.
quote:
Passed in 1866 and ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment's original intent was to guarantee civil rights, citizenship, and equal protection under the law to formerly enslaved people. It sought to overturn the Dred Scott decision, prevent Southern states from enforcing Black Codes, and solidify Congress’s Reconstruction efforts.
All the BS interpretation of the 14th amendment to allow the mass illegal invasion of the US comes from the enemies within the US. The biggest flaw with the constitution was the omission of reasonable guardrails to protect the American people from the "enemies from within" to use the constitution against the citizens of the US, which is exactly what you are listening to today from the liberal justices and quite frankly a couple of the "conservative justices during this SCOTUS hearing today.
8
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:42 am to Bass Tiger
Roberts and ACB are worrying me right now.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:44 am to Bass Tiger
What does the text say?
There is no textual foundation for the idea the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution only applies to formerly enslaved people. If that is all that the drafters wanted to do, they could have said that. But that is not what they wrote and certainly not what the states ratified.
There is no textual foundation for the idea the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution only applies to formerly enslaved people. If that is all that the drafters wanted to do, they could have said that. But that is not what they wrote and certainly not what the states ratified.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:45 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
Passed in 1866 and ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment's original intent was to guarantee civil rights, citizenship, and equal protection under the law to formerly enslaved people. It sought to overturn the Dred Scott decision, prevent Southern states from enforcing Black Codes, and solidify Congress’s Reconstruction efforts.
totally agree
If martians landed tomorrow - they should not be granted citizenship either
IF the 'common understanding' of "domicile' were to be expanded to include one's mental state, could a resident of Uganda who "believed himself to be a US resident" would be included as a citizen??? - or would we disregard his "belief" ?
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 9:51 am
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:55 am to TBoy
quote:
There is no textual foundation for the idea the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution only applies to formerly enslaved people.
oh good gawd - the onus needs to be on those who want to expand their CLEAR purpose of the 14th to fit radical 'interpretations' of the words they chose - with NO clear agreement of validity or implications of enforcing it..
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:57 am to Bass Tiger
Birthright citizenship is a scam. It only benefits rich people who pay money to have their family and friends get a free green card
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:01 am to TBoy
quote:
There is no textual foundation for the idea the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution only applies to formerly enslaved people. If that is all that the drafters wanted to do, they could have said that. But that is not what they wrote and certainly not what the states ratified.
Of course, the very same people who say this will also say that the 2nd amendment wasn't intended to apply to the types of guns we have today. Only muskets and the like. Not the high capacity semi automatic weapons we have today or the FRT's or anything like that.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:02 am to TBoy
BS, read what the authors said in the historical context.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:08 am to TBoy
quote:
What does the text say? There is no textual foundation for the idea the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution only applies to formerly enslaved people. If that is all that the drafters wanted to do, they could have said that. But that is not what they wrote and certainly not what the states ratified.
“And subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
You like the constitution and the plan words, do ya? “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
Doesn’t say they can infringe just a little. It doesn’t say anything about mufflers or forward grips or automatic firing or high capacity magazines. I’m sure you support that constitutional amendment based on the plain meaning, right?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:10 am to FLTech
quote:
Birthright citizenship is a scam.
this is true
quote:
It only benefits rich people who pay money to have their family and friends get a free green card
this is demonstrably false - IF that were the argument, the DEMOCRATs would be the ones objecting.
The PRIMARY 'benefit' of the current implementation goes to Democrats = that is why they oppose it so fervently - it would reduce their access of "ballot names"
DEMs ONLY desire is to enhance and protect election fraud.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:15 am to Bass Tiger
It's ludicrous for anyone to argue that constitutional intent was for anyone to be able to sneak into this country in the dark of night, give birth, and be "American".
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:17 am to FLTech
quote:
Birthright citizenship is a scam.
which is why the US and Canada are the ONLY first world nations dumb enough to have it.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:19 am to TBoy
quote:
There is no textual foundation for the idea the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution only applies to formerly enslaved people
Im pretty positive that the text exists in the written arguments by the people who drafted, revised, and voted on the 14th amendment.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:21 am to meansonny
quote:
Im pretty positive that the text exists in the written arguments by the people who drafted, revised, and voted on the 14th amendment.
No, the text that is important is the text of the Constitution.
quote:
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.
That is the only text that matters.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:22 am to Bass Tiger
I am laughing my arse off right now... That insanely racist grifter, Mr. (Up in dat ARSE) Roland Martin became a 'Texualist' or 'Originalist' in the last few days, arguing for anchor babies... something which doesn't affect him one bit.
I really wish the President would come out in support for Southern Fried Chicken, just to watch that man's head spin.
I really wish the President would come out in support for Southern Fried Chicken, just to watch that man's head spin.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:24 am to TBoy
quote:
quote:
Im pretty positive that the text exists in the written arguments by the people who drafted, revised, and voted on the 14th amendment.
No, the text that is important is the text of the Constitution.
quote:
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.
That is the only text that matters.
1) you moved the goalpost. I was directly providing you factual information counter to your statement.
2) "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
If birthright citizenship was the point, that phrase would not be necessary. Not be included.
It is literally in the amendment and the very reasoning for the Supreme Court hearing that we have right now.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:31 am to meansonny
quote:
1) you moved the goalpost. I was directly providing you factual information counter to your statement. 2) "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" If birthright citizenship was the point, that phrase would not be necessary. Not be included. It is literally in the amendment and the very reasoning for the Supreme Court hearing that we have right now.
They understood that the clause would not automatically grant citizenship in every case, but modern shifts in language make that harder to recognize. A key problem is how people interpret the word “jurisdiction” today versus how it was understood at the time. Contemporary readers often assume it means simply being subject to U.S. laws, but historical usage shows it carried a more complete sense of political allegiance.
For example, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, who introduced the Citizenship Clause in the Senate, described it as “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already.” He explained that it would not apply to people born in the United States who were “foreigners, aliens,” or children of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the U.S. government. Instead, it would apply to “every other class of person,” emphasizing that citizenship required being under the country’s full and complete jurisdiction.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:34 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
“And subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
You like the constitution and the plan words, do ya? “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
Doesn’t say they can infringe just a little. It doesn’t say anything about mufflers or forward grips or automatic firing or high capacity magazines. I’m sure you support that constitutional amendment based on the plain meaning, right?
Now... that's (D)ifferent, and you know it!
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:35 am to meansonny
quote:
If birthright citizenship was the point, that phrase would not be necessary
It is for the few exceptions
We don't have universal birthright citizenship. That phrase limits the population
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:36 am to cssamerican
quote:
A key problem is how people interpret the word “jurisdiction” today versus how it was understood at the time.
Wong Kim Ark was "at the time"
quote:
For example, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, who introduced the Citizenship Clause in the Senate, described it as “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already.” He explained that it would not apply to people born in the United States who were “foreigners, aliens,” or children of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the U.S. government. Instead, it would apply to “every other class of person,” emphasizing that citizenship required being under the country’s full and complete jurisdiction.
What about all other persons who participated in the process?
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News