- 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: Amy Coney Barrett = Trump’s biggest mistake
Posted on 4/6/26 at 5:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/6/26 at 5:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not a good comparison for the discussion today.
Of course it isn't.
You're acting as if there's some Objective Truth in the Constitution. It doesn't matter what the text is, all that matters is what 5 people say that text means. They can and will create shite out of thin air if they feel like it.
1
Posted on 4/7/26 at 5:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Unresponsive, irrelevant, and ridiculous.
there are other ways to become a citizen
Why is there a natural birth requirement in Article II?
There a natural birth requirement included in Article II to ensure loyalty to the US and prevent foreign influence.
By your interpretation, Ark insists that a birth tourist baby removed from this country at birth, indoctrinated age 0-21 in Communist China, then returning to the US is more qualified at age 35 to run as POTUS based upon a loyalty premise, than would be Kissinger, Musk, Schwarzenegger, etc.
It is painfully evident that the absurd tension inherent in interpretations of Ark's interpretation if the 14th A, is not appropriately considered.
Sorry, as bad as the Fuller Court was, had it or subsequent courts anticipated or even contemplated the above endpoint, we would not be in the current position we are.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 5:37 am to Champagne
quote:
I am over it.
I know that SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of birthright citizenship, and that SCOTUS will not change the current paradigm.
I accept that SCOTUS is not going to save us.
Arguments don’t necessarily predict how the Court will rule, so I’ll wait and see once a decision is issued.
My sense is that some justices may be interested in limiting birth tourism while preserving birthright citizenship for children whose parents intend to reside in the United States long term. The challenge, of course, is how to define and verify that intent. If the Court can’t draw that kind of distinction, they might instead consider a clearer standard, such as requiring at least one parent to be a citizen or actively pursuing citizenship in order to establish domicile.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 6:56 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Unresponsive, irrelevant, and ridiculous.
quote:
Why is there a natural birth requirement in Article II?
What does that matter with the 14A?
Again, there were already other ways to become a citizen between the implementation of the original Constitution and the 14A. All of those people were disqualified from becoming President. Where is this conflict?
quote:
There a natural birth requirement included in Article II to ensure loyalty to the US and prevent foreign influence.
Well considering that jus soli was the dominant rule of citizenship in America between 1789 and 1868, again, you have a lot of dots to connect to make this argument workable.
quote:
By your interpretation, Ark insists that a birth tourist baby removed from this country at birth, indoctrinated age 0-21 in Communist China, then returning to the US is more qualified at age 35 to run as POTUS based upon a loyalty premise
The "loyalty premise" is your failed attempt to make a point. Don't include it with any framing of my arguments.
quote:
It is painfully evident that the absurd tension inherent in interpretations of Ark's interpretation if the 14th A, is not appropriately considered.
Well birth tourism may be one area the court does address and disqualify, because of the domicile issue. Birth tourists can't be domiciled in the US.
The ruling in WKA does imply domicile is required.
Where the government failed is trying to warp the definition of domicile to include a "legally here" requirement, which is the only way that would apply to most illegal immigrants (the actual problem and not your "loyalty" one)
quote:
It is painfully evident that the absurd tension inherent in interpretations of Ark's interpretation
There is no tension with Article 2, and that's without even reminding you that the 14A changed the Constitution. What impacts that amendment had on original language is irrelevant as that is the entire point of amendments. The 14A also created tension with the 3/5 Clause. Why aren't you bringing that up?
This post was edited on 4/7/26 at 6:57 am
Posted on 4/7/26 at 8:55 am to Flats
"You're acting as if there's some Objective Truth in the Constitution. It doesn't matter what the text is, all that matters is what 5 people say that text means. They can and will create shite out of thin air if they feel like it."
This is the approach I badly want to avoid and, fortunately, the last 30 years or so have seen this approach--essentially, the "living Constitution" approach--fall out of favor.
This is the approach I badly want to avoid and, fortunately, the last 30 years or so have seen this approach--essentially, the "living Constitution" approach--fall out of favor.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 8:59 am to burger bearcat
Biggest disappointment of all Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court. It makes it twice as hard a pill to swallow, knowing she comes from Louisiana.
Her saving grace is she's not at all dumb like Biden's last nominee, Jackson.
Her saving grace is she's not at all dumb like Biden's last nominee, Jackson.
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News