- 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 3:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/21/26 at 3:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
We don’t need to use muh textualism to understand what the authors meant. Their contemporary writings do that for us, girlfriend.
1
Posted on 1/21/26 at 3:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Decision was correct at the time.
Well this is obviously wrong
Posted on 1/21/26 at 3:19 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Or he could say the textual analysis was incorrect.
He's going to have a really difficult time doing that, given the jurisprudential history and historical analysis of what those words mean. WKA was very thorough.
quote:
You really have a problem with that concept
No that would likely be more absurd than turning heel and going with the leftist analysis and I welcome the debasement for the lulz. He will be a minority concurrence if that's the only fight he can muster.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 3:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This ruling is going to be a test to see whether Clarence Thomas rejects his textual roots and adopts the living document method.
This not a 'textual crisis.' The communicative context shapes the fair meaning of a word, phrase, clause, and on. One will not know what a text means if uprooted from its communicative context.
This is not the living document fertilizer that libtards propose which attempts to uproot meaning.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 3:20 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
We don’t need to use muh textualism to understand what the authors meant.
You clearly have a fundamental failure in understanding these 2 concepts.
quote:
Their contemporary writings do that for us, girlfriend.
If you're relying on this, you're not relying on textualism.
That is, if you read my initial post with Scalia's commentary, the point.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 3:20 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Well this is obviously wrong
Well perhaps you should read what people are actually saying.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 3:21 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
The communicative context shapes the fair meaning of a word, phrase, clause, and on. One will not know what a text means if uprooted from its communicative context.
Are you defining "communicative context" to mean "legislative intent"?
If not, define that for us.
This post was edited on 1/21/26 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 1/21/26 at 3:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
“Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.“
Posted on 1/21/26 at 3:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy".
"I don't care what the legislators intended. I care what the fair meaning of [a] word is".
"It is the last surviving legal fiction in American law that legislative history reflects the purpose of the Congress. It does not".
"The more you use [legislative history], the phonier it will become. Downtown Washington law firms make it their business to create legislative history; that is a regular part of their practice".
"Textualism means you are governed by the text. That's the only thing that is relevant to your decision. Not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that but the text of the statute".
-Antonin Scalia
Literal chapter title from one of his books, Reading Law, is: Supremacy-of-Text Principle. The words of a governing text are of paramount concern, and what they convey, in their context, is what the text means
You are trying to gaslight people into believing a statute that said 'no wire transfers to foreign countries' would put everyone in prison for wire transfers to a foreign country, even though the statute was written under the umbrella of 'laws that apply to those holding security clearances'.
Reconstruction amendments applied to slavery. It was clear to every American when they were written and ratified. It was clear to Congress as well.
And, all of this was clear to the Judiciary.
SCOTUS 1873:
the most casual examination of the language of these amendments, no one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in them all, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him
1879
13th and 14th amendments] were primarily designed to give freedom to persons of the African race, prevent their future enslavement, make them citizens
1880
The Fourteenth Amendment … is one of a series of constitutional provisions having a common purpose — namely, securing to a race recently emancipated, a race that, through many generations, had been held in slavery, all the civil rights that the superior race enjoy. The true spirit and meaning of the amendments … cannot be understood without keeping in view the history of the times when they were adopted and the general objects they plainly sought to accomplish
There is NO textual argument, or originalist argument, to support the current concept of birthright citizenship. Scalia's own words and positions on interpretation do not support it either, no matter what drivel the 9th Circuit trots out there.
There is also the issue of someone being able to reap a benefit from crime. You can't be Ted Bundy and write a book on your killing and make a profit. You can't rob a bank and give that money to your kids and escape responsibility or have your kids retain possession of the money. Likewise, you can't invade a nation and drop a baby and anchor yourself to that nation and bestow citizenship upon that baby by virtue of your illegal activity.
The only reason birthright citizenship is a disaster right now is due to a footnote in a court decision. That is meaningless.
Wong Kim is for people that can't read or that refuse to read the Constitution and / or understand Reconstruction. Even Yale Law came out and said that decision was garbage. Also, it was about citizenship for a baby born to someone in the country legally, so it's not on point. Lastly, the people on the bench did not rely on the Constitution or the Amendments, they relied on English law to shoulder their argument. We fought a war to escape English rule. That case carries no legitimacy or relevancy to this discussion.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 3:40 pm to SNAP
quote:
You are trying to gaslight people into believing a statute that said 'no wire transfers to foreign countries' would put everyone in prison for wire transfers to a foreign country, even though the statute was written under the umbrella of 'laws that apply to those holding security clearances'.
Uh, no, the entire text of the 14A is posted regularly. There is no other context at issue, and legislative history is not part of the statutes themselves, which makes your comment even more irrelevant and non-responsive to what I posted.
quote:
There is NO textual argument, or originalist argument, to support the current concept of birthright citizenship.
Except the actual text and what "subject to the jurisdiction" meant at the time of writing the text.
quote:
The only reason birthright citizenship is a disaster right now is due to a footnote in a court decision. That is meaningless.
Wong Kim Ark is a full Supreme Court decision that is the precedent.
quote:
There is also the issue of someone being able to reap a benefit from crime.
Not applicable here. The entire immigration scheme (including any crimes associated with that status) are creatures of Congress. Congress cannot usurp or overrule the Constitution. This is the logical failure of all the status-related arguments.
quote:
Also, it was about citizenship for a baby born to someone in the country legally
This isn't even what the ruling stated. And this is a status-related argument.
WKA spoke in terms of domicile, not legal status. There is a theoretical application to a small minority of births, but not the general illegal immigrant births (as those people are domiciled in the US, like Wong's parents).
quote:
Lastly, the people on the bench did not rely on the Constitution or the Amendments, they relied on English law to shoulder their argument. We fought a war to escape English rule. That case carries no legitimacy or relevancy to this discussion.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 3:49 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
Decision was correct at the time.
In the micro, it was. Wong should’ve been considered a citizen. Expanding that beyond his case to every person who plops out on US soil (unless you were an Indian) was a mistake that couldn’t be easily foreseen.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 3:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
I don’t give a frick what unsolicited Scalia quotes you submitted to this thread, and I don’t give a frick if you think I’m not “a real conservative” because I’m not applying retarded made up Scalia standard to everything.
The text is clear to me as written and as implied. Under the jurisdiction thereof is full allegiance to the United States and to no other country. Clear to me… clear to the authors who wrote it.
The text is clear to me as written and as implied. Under the jurisdiction thereof is full allegiance to the United States and to no other country. Clear to me… clear to the authors who wrote it.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 3:55 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
I don’t give a frick what unsolicited Scalia quotes you submitted to this thread, and I don’t give a frick if you think I’m not “a real conservative” because I’m not applying retarded made up Scalia standard to everything.
cry moar fig
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
Appreciate the white flag sis
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:10 pm to Vacherie Saint
It's not a white flag. I was just laughing at you
Your objection to textualism is noted. I don't know if it has much substance, but it's noted nonetheless.
Your objection to textualism is noted. I don't know if it has much substance, but it's noted nonetheless.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That statement may be applicable now, but it wasn't really true when the Amendment was passed
How so? The fundamental question is still the same in that how do you determine who is a citizen and who is not. 1866 is not just some random point in our history that they chose to tackle this question. Furthermore, the fact that they proposed, debated and ultimately signed an amendment shows how big of a deal they considered it to be.. Don’t overlook the fact that this is post colonial, post civil war United States. As the country grew, it did so by pushing Spain, France, England and Mexico out either by taking or by purchasing their territories. If Florida is a territory of Spain and the subjects therein are Spanish citizens, what are they when the US acquires Florida? They didn’t cease being Spanish citizens. Extrapolate that out across multiple territories, throw in the Indian nations and former slaves and it becomes a big deal. Even bigger when you also have German, Irish and Italian immigrants among those also making their way here…
And that leads to this.. if they were trying to nail down the answer to the question of who is a citizen of the United States, the absolute worst answer they could have come up with is “as long as you’re born here” because it did not fundamentally address the realities of a large, growing population with foreign citizenships. You have to break the citizenship link between the United States and other foreign countries. Hopping the Mexican border and popping out a kid that can run back to Honduras or El Salvador or China as a full fledged citizen of both countries was never the intention of passing the amendment.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:13 pm to Ailsa
Birth location does not mean crap, IMO.....the circumstances do!
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:15 pm to the808bass
quote:
If you want to interpret the law with textualism, that’s fine.
Just don’t pretend that is what the authors of the legislation intended.
He wants any interpretation that is against Trump and what "MAGA" supports. That's all.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:22 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
How so?
You can just got back and look at our history until about 1910 or so.
This:
quote:
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.
Was not the understanding of America, outside of possibly Indians, for over 100 years of our country. We had no strict control of the border and those people became citizens (again, other than Indians).
quote:
The fundamental question is still the same in that how do you determine who is a citizen and who is not. 1866 is not just some random point in our history that they chose to tackle this question.
Your comment spoke of a LOT more than just how to create citizenship.
quote:
Don’t overlook the fact that this is post colonial, post civil war United States. As the country grew, it did so by pushing Spain, France, England and Mexico out either by taking or by purchasing their territories. If Florida is a territory of Spain and the subjects therein are Spanish citizens, what are they when the US acquires Florida? They didn’t cease being Spanish citizens.
When we won the war of Independent, was George Washington still an English citizen?
quote:
Even bigger when you also have German, Irish and Italian immigrants among those also making their way here
Which led to Congress finally created national immigration and naturalization policies, in the early 1900s.
quote:
if they were trying to nail down the answer to the question of who is a citizen of the United States, the absolute worst answer they could have come up with is “as long as you’re born here”
That is a criticism of those who wrote the Amendment and the words they chose. There is a process for fixing that (the Amendment process).
quote:
because it did not fundamentally address the realities of a large, growing population with foreign citizenships.
And when the 2A was written, it could have never envisioned automatic rifles or hand guns with jacketed ammo, and by your argument, the 2A does not fundamentally address the realities of society with those weapons. Do you believe that we should ignore the 2A for these reasons?
I don't.
Posted on 1/21/26 at 4:23 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
He wants any interpretation that is against Trump and what "MAGA" supports. That's all.
Your brain is broken.
I've promoted textualism for going on 20 years.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News