- 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: A very good article on the true meaning of the 14th Amendment
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:35 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Anybody remember what happened the last time John Eastman came up with a clever Constitutional legal strategy?
Yes. The deep state crushed him.
1
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:36 am to Alt26
quote:
The words of the Constitution say what they say. Some interpret it strictly. Others interpret it differently. But in a practical sense, the Constitution is what a plurality of 9 justices think it says. Clearly Trump and the conservatives believe a plurality of the current make up of the USSC will agree with their POV. It's just a matter of getting the issue to them to decide.
You are much more optimistic than I on the chances that EO gets upheld by SCOTUS. I think it’s 99% against.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:38 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Yes. The deep state crushed him.
Or, more accurately, a bunch of lawyers got in serious trouble for making patently false legal arguments.
Here we go again
quote:
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour, an appointee of Ronald Reagan, said from the bench. “There are other times in world history where we look back and people of goodwill can say where were the judges, where were the lawyers?”
Coughenour, speaking to a standing-room-only courtroom in downtown Seattle, interrupted before Brett Shumate, a Justice Department attorney, could even complete his first sentence.
“In your opinion is this executive order constitutional?” he asked.
Said Shumate, “It absolutely is.”
“Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order,” Coughenour said. “It just boggles my mind.”
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:40 am to SlowFlowPro
How can anybody read the words of senator Howard who wrote the amendment and believe birthright citizenship is valid 
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 9:40 am
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:44 am to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
Representative John Bingham, one of the principal framers of the 14th Amendment:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.”
Senator Jacob Howard, a key proponent of the 14th Amendment:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Bold emphasis added.
quote:
The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy
quote:
In ascertaining the meaning of a statute, a court cannot in the manner of Sherlock Holmes pursue the theory of the dog that didn’t bark. We are here to apply the statute, not the legislative history
-Scalia
Clarence Thomas and Gorsuch have the same philosophy
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:45 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I keep trying to explain it to you, and you keep rejecting the explanation.
Except "tribal Indians" were under the jurisdiction of the US as it is currently being defined. "Tribal Indians" were fully, completely, and unquestionably in that category when they traveled off the reservation in the US. Yet, there was no birthright.
Why?
Indians were treated as sui generis persons.
Why was an Indian amendment proposed and rejected for the Citizenship Clause in the first place? Why is an Indian exception found in the Section 2 of the 14th Amendment? Why does the SCOTUS in Elk and Ark as well as the Senate in debating the 14th Amendment, discuss the long history of the Indians and their status with United States government? Because Indians were sui generis persons when it comes to the United States.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:46 am to jb4
quote:
How can anybody read the words of senator Howard who wrote the amendment and believe birthright citizenship is valid
It just depends on how you analyze the law. I'm more with Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Gorsuch, etc., who reject legislative history in favor of textualism
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We are here to apply the statute, not the legislative history
Then, how are diplomats excepted from birth right citizenship? The clause doesn’t say anything explicitly excepting them?
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:52 am to SlowFlowPro
Lawyers have been zealously representing unpopular causes for decades.
Clarence Darrow was nearly jailed.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:52 am to jb4
quote:Four reasons.
How can anybody read the words of senator Howard who wrote the amendment and believe birthright citizenship is valid
First, the text of the Citizenship Clause says birthright citizenship is valid.
Second, the history of the Citizenship Clause says birthright citizenship is valid.
Third, the SCOTUS says birthright citizenship is valid
Fourth, Senator Howard believed that birthright citizenship was valid.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 9:54 am to Goforit
Bump
If you want to be knowledgeable about the 14th Amendment read the linked article in the OP. It is clear, it is informative, it is short, it show the truth. It even shows the history of the undermining of the 14th amendment.
And hopefully it brings realization that the goal of many in the world of destroying this country goes back a long way and isn't a new thing.
If you want to be knowledgeable about the 14th Amendment read the linked article in the OP. It is clear, it is informative, it is short, it show the truth. It even shows the history of the undermining of the 14th amendment.
And hopefully it brings realization that the goal of many in the world of destroying this country goes back a long way and isn't a new thing.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:01 am to LSUFAITHFUL2
quote:
Then, how are diplomats excepted from birth right citizenship?
The textualist analysis. That was the common meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" when the amendment was drafted (for a few hundred years).
quote:
Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the 'general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of 'Aliens' and 'Natives," says: 'Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are, in theory, born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent.' 'To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born, not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a state, while abroad, and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.' 2 Kent, Comm. (6th Ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says: 'And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the king, and under the king's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary.' "Subject' and 'citizen' are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term 'citizen' seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, 'subjects,' for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.' Id. 258, note.
There are more. WKA gets into a historical analysis of the term's meaning legally.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:04 am to jp4lsu
Even under that theory I would think it would require them to show up for their hearing and be granted asylum?
So many though slip through and don't even get temporary asylum.
So many though slip through and don't even get temporary asylum.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:06 am to Crimson
quote:
Adding others I read yesterday. We have to be able to have educated discussions on this issue. That starts with understanding.
Very true. It seems like there are people that have dug their heels in to the point of not willing to have a discussion, as if this hasn’t been a discussion amongst Americans for a long time.
The original intent isn’t what is being utilized now, but abused by birth tourism. Abused by our enemies like China. Sending women over to give birth to citizens, return back to create agents that can later be used to infiltrate our govt, military, etc. there are people that can’t look past their nose to see how things need to be changed for the protection of our future gens, and that is why Trump was rehired. We need our entire immigration system revamped.
I the article I found it interesting how states are looking at denying the citizenship. I don’t know their argument to be able to pull that off but it’s good to see the attempt.
I can honestly say I find it hard to trust anyone’s intentions that aren’t at least open to the possibility that this is just wrong for our nation. It’s definitely not an proud America First mentality, but a globalist first mentality.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm more with Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Gorsuch, etc.
You have a grave misunderstanding of their theory on statutory interpretation.
The legislative intent they are referring to, is a common law judge practice of interpreting "subjective legislative intent" or "unexpressed legislative intent". Rather than "objective legislative intent".
Subjective legislative intent is a theory that ignores what's on the page and replaces it with what a common law judge determines was the legislature's intent.
Objective legislative intent only concerns itself with what is on the page. But still takes into account that the words chosen were chosen with intention.
From Scalia himself
quote:
The evidence suggests that, despite frequent statements to the contrary, we do not really look for subjective legislative intent. We look for a sort of "objectified" intent-the intent that a reasonable person would gather from the text of the law, placed alongside the remainder of the corpus juris. As Bishop's old treatise nicely put it, elaborating upon the usual formulation: "[T]he primary object of all rules for interpreting statutes is to ascertain the legislative intent; or, exactly, the meaning which the subject is authorized to understand the legislature intended."16 And the reason we adopt this objectified version is, I think, that it is simply incompatible with democratic government, or indeed, even with fair government, to have the meaning of a law determined by what the lawgiver meant, rather than by what the lawgiver promulgated.
quote:
When you are to decide, not on the basis of what the legislature said, but on the basis of what it meant, and are assured that there is no necessary connection between the two, your best shot at figuring out what the legislature meant is to ask yourself what a wise and intelligent person should have meant; and that will surely bring you to the conclusion that the law means what you think it ought to mean-which is precisely how judges decide things under the common law
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:30 am to JoeHackett
IRRELEVANT!!! LINK!??!!! THATS NOT WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING!!!!!!!
and don't you DARE speak for Scalia.... Only slotard can do this.
and don't you DARE speak for Scalia.... Only slotard can do this.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:40 am to JoeHackett
quote:At no point in anything you wrote or quoted does it suggest that Scalia examined legislative history.
Objective legislative intent only concerns itself with what is on the page. But still takes into account that the words chosen were chosen with intention.
From Scalia himselfquote:
The evidence suggests that, despite frequent statements to the contrary, we do not really look for subjective legislative intent. We look for a sort of "objectified" intent-the intent that a reasonable person would gather from the text of the law, placed alongside the remainder of the corpus juris. As Bishop's old treatise nicely put it, elaborating upon the usual formulation: "[T]he primary object of all rules for interpreting statutes is to ascertain the legislative intent; or, exactly, the meaning which the subject is authorized to understand the legislature intended."16 And the reason we adopt this objectified version is, I think, that it is simply incompatible with democratic government, or indeed, even with fair government, to have the meaning of a law determined by what the lawgiver meant, rather than by what the lawgiver promulgated.quote:
When you are to decide, not on the basis of what the legislature said, but on the basis of what it meant, and are assured that there is no necessary connection between the two, your best shot at figuring out what the legislature meant is to ask yourself what a wise and intelligent person should have meant; and that will surely bring you to the conclusion that the law means what you think it ought to mean-which is precisely how judges decide things under the common law
I don't understand how you can ignore what you quoted:
quote:Scalia does not care what the lawgiver meant. He does not care about what the legislative history suggests what the lawgiver meant.
And the reason we adopt this objectified version is, I think, that it is simply incompatible with democratic government, or indeed, even with fair government, to have the meaning of a law determined by what the lawgiver meant, rather than by what the lawgiver promulgated.
Scalia only cares about the words that lawgiver wrote in the law. That is, Scalia examines the text only, not the legislative intent, let alone legislative history.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:48 am to Salviati
I read that as him just attempting to be more clear about the intentions of the lawmaker and how "intent" could in theory be bastardized by biased courts. Using "promulgate" extends beyond raw intent into some form of action that substantiates the intent.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:53 am to Vacherie Saint
No one could argue with a straight face that the people who penned the 14th Amendment and the people who ratified it meant for it to apply to anchor babies. They didn't envision that an illegal who is pregnant and a citizen of another country would time her illegal entry into the U. S. specifically to have her child so the baby could become a U.S. citizen.
How can such a person be said to be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. when they are clearly flaunting our laws? This certainly does not show loyalty to the U.S.
The problem with the Wong decision was that the judges viewed him a citizen simply because he was born in the U.S. He should have been considered a U.S. citizen because his parents were here legally. He had lived in the U.S. for many years and abiding by its laws. He was certainly under the jurisdiction of the U. S. The judges correctly ruled that Wong was a citizen, but their rationale was wrong.
How can such a person be said to be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. when they are clearly flaunting our laws? This certainly does not show loyalty to the U.S.
The problem with the Wong decision was that the judges viewed him a citizen simply because he was born in the U.S. He should have been considered a U.S. citizen because his parents were here legally. He had lived in the U.S. for many years and abiding by its laws. He was certainly under the jurisdiction of the U. S. The judges correctly ruled that Wong was a citizen, but their rationale was wrong.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:56 am to Goforit
It’s clear that the 14th amendment was never intended to give citizenship to a person born inside the United States to foreigner parents. The problem with the 14th amendment and a lot of other constitutional issues is that the English language changes over time and people want to apply current readings to old writings. Almost every hot button constitutional issue is one side is attempting to understand the original intent/language while the other side uses modern English interpretations only to read it. That same side controls media and entertainment, so they can easily change English phrases to mean something different over time. It’s extremely frustrating that Americans are so dumb that they don’t see this.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News