- 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: BOOOO…Birthright Decision Coming Out Today
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:20 am to Ace Midnight
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:20 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
We kind of already know that this decision is going against Trump's position. Why? Because if it was going to go Trump's way, *ahem* "someone" would have leaked it already. #Facts
There’s such a small number of reasons for a nefarious trouble maker to leak a decision early. The only two reasons I can think of are a) to create enough pre-release blowback to force a change, even if only a subtle change. And b) to foment unrest and drama about the forthcoming decision so as to frame it as outside of the Overton Window; ie, make it seem radical.
In other words it is a subversive, communist, revolutionary action meant to destabilize and subvert the rule of law.
0
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:25 am to HagaDaga
quote:
Pray hard y'all. The inability to control this will make or break our nation. Our enemies are using it against us. The destruction of our nation needs solid strides forward at this point. Baby steps ain't doing it.
Obviously the chance is small it fully goes the Right way, but hopefully it comes out in some way that it forces Congress to do something. Which would be tough, cause they are pretty worthless. It going the Right way is probably the only thing that will trigger Congress to reverse SCOTUS.
Please Lord save the Republic...In Manibus Dei!
You're correct. If they rule for birthright citizenship, we're only delaying the inevitable end of our nation as a free land.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:26 am to llfshoals
quote:
Unfortunately I doubt we can find a half dozen congressional representatives who have any.
The best way to make birthright citizenship more complicated if the ruling goes left is to abolish dual citizenship, b'hatzlacha.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:28 am to HagaDaga
Unfortunately, I just don't see the Roberts court doing anything but upholding an incorrect precedent in this case. I hope I'm wrong, but I'll be stunned if I am.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:42 am to NC_Tigah
We cannot even successfully address the illegal population of country how are we ever going to address those born here
I think there is an argument for an interpretation that subject to the jurisdiction they all can be interpreted against birthright citizenship but I just do not see it happening
I think there is an argument for an interpretation that subject to the jurisdiction they all can be interpreted against birthright citizenship but I just do not see it happening
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:43 am to HagaDaga
quote:This should be an easy decision. Anchor babies should not be citizens.
Birthright Decision Coming Out Today
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:46 am to dafif
quote:That argument is beyond sound as the amendment was written. The problem is the ignorant interpretation of that language 30 years after the fact.
I think there is an argument for an interpretation that subject to the jurisdiction
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:50 am to udtiger
quote:
Congress can define what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean akin to how it can determine the jurisdiction of SCOTUS (and lesser federal courts) outside of the constitutional grants of authority
You just contradicted your point
"Subject to the jurisdiction" is the equivalent of "the constitutional grants of authority"
That has no conceptual overlap with enforcement of the constitutional grants of the amendment
With your argument, you would permit Congress to define any word in the amendment in any way. It's all fit, regardless of the text of the constitutional amendment, the intent, etc. the entire amendment would be beholden to Congressional acts. How does this make sense in a constitutional system of government where Congress itself is limited by that very document?
ETA: if you think my argument is incorrect, tell me specifically which words. In the 14th amendment Congress could not define how they wish, and then cite the specific authority to establish that distinction for me.
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 8:52 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I have entirely too much time sensitive work for this to happen today
You're going to make more posts on this site today than anyone else.
Over/under this guy makes 100 posts today?
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:54 am to Tarps99
Only possible win is ruling that those born to parents on visas are not citizens at birth. But I think that is unlikely as well, just possible.
Those who come here illegally, those with green cards, anyone else where there is an element of permanent residence - their children born here will continue to be citizens for sure.
Those who come here illegally, those with green cards, anyone else where there is an element of permanent residence - their children born here will continue to be citizens for sure.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:No.
With your argument, you would permit Congress to define any word in the amendment in any way.
That's actually your argument. The intent of the language was made clear by the authors. That intent has been ignored. The meaning of the term "jurisdiction" has been changed. Unfortunately, this Scotus under Roberts has made clear that congressional language doesn't actually matter. That's why I have a little hope of a favorable ruling in this case.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:56 am to NC_Tigah
So we using this thread to discuss the decisions as they come out or should a new thread be started?
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:59 am to HagaDaga
Only 2 boxes today apparently,
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:00 am to dafif
quote:
We cannot even successfully address the illegal population of country
We CAN, we just lack the will do so and it will be the death of us in the end; but I know what you meant
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:01 am to NC_Tigah
For a lawyer, words mean whatever the winner says.
Darwinism for nerds.
Darwinism for nerds.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:03 am to MMauler
quote:
If there is no constitutional right to birthright citizenship, then it would seem that Congress would have to affirmatively grant birthright citizenship for it to be valid.
Or conversely, enact restrictions in whatever way the gutless wonders in DC can muster.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:04 am to BuckeyeGoon
quote:
Over/under this guy makes 100 posts today?
Under
He'll be near 70-75. But regardless whatever way these decisions go, he's going to claim "I predicted this".
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:14 am to HagaDaga
We should remove illegals period. If they choose to take their child, fine. If not, then they give the child up.
This would pretty much bypass this issue by deterrence.
This would pretty much bypass this issue by deterrence.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:34 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The intent of the language was made clear by the authors.
There were different commentors and there were different intents communicated. This was made clear in oral arguments.
This is why relying on intent of the authors is not the favored analytical framework, for non-leftists at least. That's why relying on the actual text and their meaning, generally, at the time (Textualism/originalism) is the superior method. When you get into intent, you have to mind read every participant int he process and you can see how that gets absurd quickly.
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 9:36 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:39 am to MMauler
quote:
If there is no constitutional right to birthright citizenship, then it would seem that Congress would have to affirmatively grant birthright citizenship for it to be valid.
Congress always has had this power under its constitutional naturalization powers. That's how they were able to give Natives citizenship in the face of Elk v. Wilkins.
Congress has vast authority above the Constitutional baselline.
Congress has no authority below the Constitutional baseline.
This power is discussed eloquently in Wong Kim Ark:
quote:
The power of naturalization, vested in congress by the constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. 'A naturalized citizen,' said Chief Justice Marshall, 'becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue.' Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of congress, a fortiori no act or omission of congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The fourteenth amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
LINK
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News