- 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 10:56 am to JoeHackett
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:56 am to JoeHackett
quote:
You have a grave misunderstanding of their theory on statutory interpretation.
I do not, especially regarding legislative history.
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.
quote:
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.
Not from the legislator, from the corpus juris.
This is exactly what the court in WKA did by going into prior case law and the English common law.
As he said (in your quote)
quote:
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;
Again, specifcally NOT the legislator
0
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:57 am to Salviati
quote:
At no point in anything you wrote or quoted does it suggest that Scalia examined legislative history.
I don't understand how you can ignore what you quoted:
He keeps trying to include things that are specifically NOT legislative intent as "legislative intent" as some gotcha. It's been going on 2 days now.
He didn't even read his own quotes.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:57 am to Goforit
I believe your are right and some court will ultimately test this.
After so much debate on this, I think I'll slightly amend my conclusions on Wong... Its not that Wong is incorrect as much as its incomplete. It really never grants ju soli to children of illegal immigrants. Its simply been wrongfully used by state departments as the justification of that policy.
After so much debate on this, I think I'll slightly amend my conclusions on Wong... Its not that Wong is incorrect as much as its incomplete. It really never grants ju soli to children of illegal immigrants. Its simply been wrongfully used by state departments as the justification of that policy.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:57 am to Salviati
quote:
At no point in anything you wrote or quoted does it suggest that Scalia examined legislative history.
Ok. I guess it's good that I'm pointing out his flaw of ignoring "legislative intent". Which is clear. Scalia intended to interpret the intention of what was written and not what wasn't written.
quote:
Scalia does not care what the lawgiver meant.
He absolutely cares about what the lawgiver meant when he put it into words in the statute.
quote:
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:
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.
That's incredibly clear. What is the intention of what is on the page. What did the people believe they were doing.
quote:
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.
It's hilarious that you keep mentioning legislative history when I never mentioned it.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:57 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
I read that as him just attempting to be more clear about the intentions of the lawmaker
You read it wrong, then.
quote:
and how "intent" could in theory be bastardized by biased courts.
This is correct, which is why we don't look at the intentions of the lawmaker at all.
quote:
Using "promulgate" extends beyond raw intent into some form of action that substantiates the intent.
It specifically means what the legislator said about the law during the drafting process, aka, legislative intent, which we ignore as textualists.
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 10:59 am
Posted on 1/24/25 at 10:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He didn't even read his own quotes.
You might be an idiot.
quote:
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."
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:00 am to Goforit
quote:
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
Congress created the "illegal" status years after the case.
quote:
nd 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.
Sounds like you want a Living Constitution then, for the unforeseen results of the words of the Constitution itself.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:02 am to cssamerican
quote:
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.
That's what people attacking Wong are doing, just FWIW.
Wong went into a detailed analysis of what the words meant at the time.
quote:
That same side controls media and entertainment, so they can easily change English phrases to mean something different over time.
yes Leftists love the Living Constitution, which is why I'm shocked MAGA is adopting it.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:03 am to SlowFlowPro
thats just ridiculous, and I think you know it. The intent or aim of the law matters if questions exist beyond the letter. The exercise or promulgation of that implied intent erases any doubt.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:03 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Sounds like you want a Living Constitution then
You are going to do this all over again, arent you?
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:04 am to JoeHackett
quote:
I guess it's good that I'm pointing out his flaw of ignoring "legislative intent".
The phrase you quoted to start this digression
quote:
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
quote:
Scalia intended to interpret the intention of what was written and not what wasn't written.
While ignoring what the legislator has to say about the matter.
quote:
He absolutely cares about what the lawgiver meant when he put it into words in the statute.
As I pointed out, your own quote disagrees
quote:
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 mean
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:07 am to SlowFlowPro
Well I'm arguing text as in the text says subject to the jurisdiction and jurisdiction means political not territorial jurisdiction.
Just like with a second Amendment says " keeping bear arms ". "Arms" doesn't mean the arms attached to my body.
Just like with a second Amendment says " keeping bear arms ". "Arms" doesn't mean the arms attached to my body.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:08 am to BuckyCheese
quote:
SFP in 3...2...1...
He'll be here soon to dispute this:
quote:
Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The phrase you quoted to start this digression
That's a complete lie, I never quoted that. I intentionally ignored that part of the quote for a reason. You've made the claim that Scalia ignored the intent of the legislature for days and I sought to dispute that claim.
quote:
As I pointed out, your own quote disagrees
You can't take quotes out of context, the full quote is necessary to understand his point.
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.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Wong went into a detailed analysis of what the words meant at the time.
A key difference here is Wong’s parents were legally residing in the United States when he was born; therefore, they were subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:15 am to Goforit
Right or wrong - I find it difficult to imagine how one can determine the allegiance of a baby. The 14th does not say born to parents subject to the jurisdiction. Does the so-called allegiance of the parents get imputed upon the baby? What if one parent is a citizen and one is in the US illegally?
Then my next question. Let's say kids of illegal immigrants are not citizens, how does one prove citizenship? Do I have to show that my ancestors immigrated to the US legally?
I think construing the law to require an allegiance determination creates unintended consequences.
Then my next question. Let's say kids of illegal immigrants are not citizens, how does one prove citizenship? Do I have to show that my ancestors immigrated to the US legally?
I think construing the law to require an allegiance determination creates unintended consequences.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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 mean
Just for the record this isn't even the full sentence, let alone a sentence in context.
quote:
"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."
And what objectified version have we adopted?
quote:
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."
That's why context matters, it's intellectually dishonest to remove the whole quote.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:23 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
The intent or aim of the law matters if questions exist beyond the letter.
Not the intent of the legislators, at least with textualism.
Other interpretive methods give weight to this.
quote:
The exercise or promulgation of that implied intent erases any doubt.
They promulgate the intent into the notes and registers from which people keep quoting legislators, but Scalia and textualism rejects this, specifically.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:23 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
You are going to do this all over again, arent you?
Yes, when people keep making LC arguments, I will point out out to them the arguments they're making.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:24 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
He'll be here soon to dispute this:
Already did in other threads before this one was made. That's a very dishonest summary of the case.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News