- 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 11:59 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It also would create a scenario where Congress can usurp the Constitution by defining classes of people to which the Constitution no longer applies.
I mean Thomas straight up called for that last week in his concurrence.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 12:08 pm to lionward2014
He's lost his way and is just political rage baiting at this point 
Posted on 6/29/26 at 12:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Look at how congress has imposed limitations to the Second Amendment……
How can Congress define Constitutional baselines?
They absolutely can redefine “Jurisdiction” and it’s interpretation in the 14th Amendment.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 12:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:OLLY OLLY OXEN FREE! HERE I COME!!
"declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is… a natural born citizen."
Posted on 6/29/26 at 12:23 pm to rltiger
quote:
Look at how congress has imposed limitations to the Second Amendment……
They didn't redefine the 2A, they just said there are limits on the 2A...which is bullshite, mind you, but it's not the same thing conceptually.
From Heller
quote:
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.
Now, if Congress tried to find some authority to regulate behaviors the 14A purportedly protects and made the same argument? It would be similar, but it would face certain scrutiny that would be hard to survive. That's a completely different action/analysis, though.
To compare the attempt for Congress to redefine the constitutional baseline of the 2A, you'd have to see them define "militia" or "security" or "arms" with legislation, which would mean Heller could be reversed by Congress with this simple trick.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 12:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
They could make a viable argument that illegals immigrants are not here legally and aren’t afforded certain constitutional rights.
Supreme Court just ruled you can deport illegals without due process, a constitutional right for US citizens. I’m sure Congress could write an interpretation of the 14th to say illegals, or any foreign citizens traveling here to give birth aren’t guaranteed birthright citizenship.
Supreme Court just ruled you can deport illegals without due process, a constitutional right for US citizens. I’m sure Congress could write an interpretation of the 14th to say illegals, or any foreign citizens traveling here to give birth aren’t guaranteed birthright citizenship.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 12:49 pm to rltiger
quote:
Supreme Court just ruled you can deport illegals without due process
The legal determination that they are not here in accordance with our immigration law, and their subsequent deportation IS the process.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 12:58 pm to rltiger
quote:
They could make a viable argument that illegals immigrants are not here legally and aren’t afforded certain constitutional rights.
Are they going to just ignore the US around the time of adopting the 14A when "illegal immigrants" effectively didn't exist as a concept?
Posted on 6/29/26 at 1:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
commie alert and a known **** AKA diclicker
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 6/29/26 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I have entirely too much time sensitive work for this to happen today
Uh-huh. That's why you've been posting all day.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 1:14 pm to Tarps99
quote:
Now we could be surprised and see a 5-4 in support of Trump.
No way Roberts and Barrett don't vote with the marxists on this. Barrett is incapable of seeing logic and rationality when big emotions exist.
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 6/29/26 at 1:18 pm to rltiger
quote:
Supreme Court just ruled you can deport illegals without due process, a constitutional right for US citizens.
Link?
Posted on 6/29/26 at 1:19 pm to TheMagicMan
quote:
I mean I want birthright citizenship to end, but even I can understand how bad a retroactive component would go. How far back do you go? Do you make everyone in the U.S. prove their citizenship again?
You stop more infection from coming in then you send in the antibiotics to get the stragglers before they can reproduce more
Posted on 6/29/26 at 1:44 pm to HagaDaga
ACB and Roberts will frick us so I am not holding breath.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 1:56 pm to HagaDaga
I think they hold this one until Thursday
Posted on 6/29/26 at 2:01 pm to rltiger
quote:
rltiger
They can access the right to enter through the processes already afforded them. No need for taxpayer funds to go towards them staying here and gumming up the courts.
Popular
Back to top


1









