- 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: Birthright citizenship - Library of congress deleted history!
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:57 pm to kingbob
Posted on 1/21/26 at 1:57 pm to kingbob
quote:
It is explaining the portion "and subject to the jurisdiction therein". The passage is clarifying who is subject to that jurisdiction and who is not. It's a pretty important bit of context when trying to understand the amendment, is it not?
If you want to see the textualist analysis of this phrase, read Wong Kim Ark.
For the purposes of that individual legislator, he used bad language for his goal
1
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:In this case, what is the fair meaning of the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction'?
This ruling is going to be a test to see whether Clarence Thomas rejects his textual roots and adopts the living document method.
Do you admit to any potential ambiguity there, and if so how would you resolve it?
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
I don’t disagree that legislative history is usually an unreliable indicator of what the law means.
My disagreement is more with the absolutism that Scalia had with textualism.
It’s a theoretical disagreement really since the friction only arises with ambiguities in the text, and I almost always agree with Scalia’s conclusions, though he’s not without bad decisions.
My disagreement is more with the absolutism that Scalia had with textualism.
It’s a theoretical disagreement really since the friction only arises with ambiguities in the text, and I almost always agree with Scalia’s conclusions, though he’s not without bad decisions.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You say this while attacking analyzing the actual words used in a statute.
lol. Who’s the best person to ask what language meant to them when they said it? Obviously some lawyer.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:20 pm to the808bass
"The words of one of the drafters of a statute are completely useless for determining what the statute means.
The words of one judge decades later are the only useful interpretation for the meaning of a statute and can never ever be revisited, questioned, or revised."_ every Common law stan
The words of one judge decades later are the only useful interpretation for the meaning of a statute and can never ever be revisited, questioned, or revised."_ every Common law stan
This post was edited on 1/21/26 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:24 pm to kingbob
quote:What a bizarre non sequitur. Every law that contains ambiguity requires interpretation, whether by a civil magistrate or by a common law judge.
every Common law stan
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Wong Kim Ark
Case still screwing us today.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
If the left is going to be defeated, people are going to have to stop holding themselves accountable on hypocrisy and “isms”, because the left doesn’t hold themselves to this same standard. If you continue to play with an arm tied behind your back, you will continue to lose.
It is ok to say “I want this because I want to destroy communists”.
It is ok to say “I want this because I want to destroy communists”.
This post was edited on 1/21/26 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:28 pm to UtahCajun
But that judge showed that Chinese are people, too!
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:29 pm to kingbob
quote:
All originalists are textualists, but not all textualists are originalists.
That is the problem with attorneys and judges who interpret the law, you can have a room full of them and you get the same amount of different opinions as people.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
So?…
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:41 pm to Ailsa
Here’s something to consider. If your default position is that every single person born within the United States is a citizen, then you must protect the sovereignty of those citizens. That means strict control of the border and who is let in. You cannot exist as a country if both everyone born here is a citizen and anyone can simple walk across the border.. if you want open borders that allow aliens to come and go as they please, then you cannot bestow upon them or their offspring citizenship. You can’t grant them voting rights and you can’t grant them access to the public coffers that are for the benefit of the citizenry.
This post was edited on 1/21/26 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:41 pm to the808bass
quote:
Who’s the best person to ask what language meant to them when they said it?
For this analysis, you have to ask each legislator who voted on it for their individual view of the language.
I don't know if you have a time machine handy, but by all means.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
you type more bs per minute than any poster in the history of posting.
we know your legal stance. why not just wait until the ruling and then rub it in our faces ...
we know your legal stance. why not just wait until the ruling and then rub it in our faces ...
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:42 pm to G2160
quote:
If the left is going to be defeated, people are going to have to stop holding themselves accountable on hypocrisy and “isms”
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The insight of only an extreme minority of participants in the vote for that statute.
If it got into the Legislative History, then it is the best record we have giving us some insight into what the legislators had in mind, as a body, when they passed the legislation. If there were some dissenting views, they were not recorded, and Reason dictates that they were not recorded because the dissent was in the minority.
Reason does not dictate that the view which managed to be recorded in the Legislative History is the "extreme minority". That's illogical and challenges Reason.
It is reasonable to conclude that if the Legislative History of the Amendment militates against Birthright Citizenship, then THAT is what We the People intended.
Burden shifts to you to demonstrate by Clear and Convincing Evidence that the Legislative History is One Big Lie. I doubt anybody can do that - they can try - but, they can't demonstrate that the Legislative History is Lying or that it is somehow meant to stand for the Opposite of what it says.
We are not living in Bizzaro World or in Superman's Universe of the Opposite, or even in the Star Trek episode where Spock's "double" has a beard and is an aggressive violent brutal and emotional menace.
WE LIVE IN REALITY, SIR, NOT IN YOUR UNIVERSE WHERE SPOCK IS EVIL. Now stop it with your nonsense.
This post was edited on 1/21/26 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:44 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
Here’s something to consider. If your default position is that every single person born within the United States is a citizen, then you must protect the sovereignty of those citizens. That means strict control of the border and who is let it. You cannot exist as a country if both everyone born here is a citizen and anyone can simple walk across the border.. if you want open borders that allow aliens to come and go as they please, then you cannot bestow upon them or their offspring citizenship. You can’t grant them voting rights and you can’t grant them access to the public coffers that are for the benefit of the citizenry.
Here is the thing. That statement may be applicable now, but it wasn't really true when the Amendment was passed, and no subsequent Amendment has been passed as society changed. This is why the living document analysis has become so popular with MAGA with this particular case. They want the Constitution to change with society, ignoring the text and amendment process.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
cry moar fig
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:46 pm to Champagne
quote:
If it got into the Legislative History, then it is the best record we have giving us some insight into what the legislators had in mind
This is simply not true. It's a record of what one or two legislators during the process stated and nothing more.
quote:
Reason does not dictate that the view which managed to be recorded in the Legislative History is the "extreme minority". That's illogical and challenges Reason.
It's usually simply the author's view or the committee that approved it and nothing more. Again, and extreme minority of the total voting population.
quote:
It is reasonable to conclude that if the Legislative History of the Amendment militates against Birthright Citizenship, then THAT is what We the People intended.
Then they should have used their words more good.
This post was edited on 1/21/26 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 1/21/26 at 2:46 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
cry moar fig
cry?
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News