- 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
Chip Roy claims birthright citizenship can be ended by congressional bill.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 7:51 am
Posted on 7/9/26 at 7:51 am
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
The Supreme Court’s flawed ruling on birthright citizenship is poised to trigger a massive wave of abuse and exploitation.
Congressman Chip Roy says fixing it DOES NOT require a Constitutional Amendment.
Take a listen to @chiproytx's plan!
10
Posted on 7/9/26 at 7:53 am to loogaroo
quote:
Chip Roy claims birthright citizenship can be ended by congressional bill.
Chip Roy is wrong.
Kavanaugh's concurrence said this may work, but he was 1 of 9 making that argument and there is a majority who disagrees, which is what matters.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 7:54 am to loogaroo
Brett Kavanaugh outlined a path in his dissenting opinion:
Justice Brett Kavanaugh outlined a distinct path for addressing birthright citizenship when the Supreme Court struck down a presidential executive order attempting to end the practice.
While he agreed with the court's judgment that the specific executive order was invalid, his legal reasoning differed from the majority and established the following key points:
No Constitutional Violation: In his separate opinion, Kavanaugh stated that he did not believe the president's executive order violated the 14th Amendment itself.
Statutory Conflict: Instead, he argued that the order contradicted existing federal statutes that govern citizenship and immigration laws.
A Legislative Roadmap: Kavanaugh asserted that Congress could bypass the constitutional constraints by passing new legislation. Specifically, he noted that lawmakers could amend current federal statutes to establish exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to foreign citizens who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily
Justice Brett Kavanaugh outlined a distinct path for addressing birthright citizenship when the Supreme Court struck down a presidential executive order attempting to end the practice.
While he agreed with the court's judgment that the specific executive order was invalid, his legal reasoning differed from the majority and established the following key points:
No Constitutional Violation: In his separate opinion, Kavanaugh stated that he did not believe the president's executive order violated the 14th Amendment itself.
Statutory Conflict: Instead, he argued that the order contradicted existing federal statutes that govern citizenship and immigration laws.
A Legislative Roadmap: Kavanaugh asserted that Congress could bypass the constitutional constraints by passing new legislation. Specifically, he noted that lawmakers could amend current federal statutes to establish exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to foreign citizens who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 7:56 am
Posted on 7/9/26 at 7:55 am to Tigergreg
quote:
Brett Kavanaugh outlined a path in his dissenting opinion:
How is this going to work when only 1 of 9 agrees with this? 4 at best
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 7:56 am
Posted on 7/9/26 at 7:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How is this going to work when only 1 of 9 agrees with this? 4 at best
The legislation would have to be tailored and be specific. We'll never get Kagan, Jackson or Sotomayor. We just need Barrett or Roberts to switch.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:00 am to loogaroo
Chip Roy would be correct if Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion had been the majority one, but it was not. The current majority of SCOTUS disagrees with Chip Roy.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:00 am to Tigergreg
quote:
We just need Barrett or Roberts to switch.
Why would they switch?
Public pressure? Threats? It wouldn't be based on legal reasoning.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:06 am to SlowFlowPro
SCOTUS has shown they give deference to legislation so I would suggest part of immigration reform to clearly define who is granted birthright citizenship including a definition to specify “jurisdiction” to align with the constitution. It would get challenged but would have a fighting chance.
All a moot point though because Congress can’t do shite other than approve billions for Ukraine.
All a moot point though because Congress can’t do shite other than approve billions for Ukraine.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:06 am to loogaroo
senate republicans will not pass it. Massie, Thune, McConnell, Cornyn , Cassidy - one or all will stop it.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:08 am to loogaroo
I wouldn’t say “can” but “could.”
But this is all hot air anyway because there’s no way they would get it done because too many of them wouldn’t want to get it done when push came to shove.
But this is all hot air anyway because there’s no way they would get it done because too many of them wouldn’t want to get it done when push came to shove.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:11 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
SCOTUS has shown they give deference to legislation so I would suggest part of immigration reform to clearly define who is granted birthright citizenship including a definition to specify “jurisdiction” to align with the constitution. It would get challenged but would have a fighting chance.
That ship sailed with the latest ruling.
Any legislation violating the Constitutional baseline re-established last week is illegal and the law is null/void.
Congress does not have the ability to redefine what the Constitution says and move Constitutional baselines. If that were true, Congress would be Emperor Palpatine
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:13 am to winkchance
Massie is not a Senator, know your congressional people.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Any legislation violating the Constitutional baseline re-established last week is illegal and the law is null/void.
It is until Congress takes action.
quote:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Now I know modern politicians don't have the balls to use that power, but it looks like they have it.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:26 am to Flats
quote:
Now I know modern politicians don't have the balls to use that power, but it looks like they have it.
That power you cited doesn't overrule judicial review. Judicial Review isn't even specifically in the Constitution
*ETA: that's a WHOLE 'nother discussion, though
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 8:35 am
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:40 am to loogaroo
quote:Unless Roberts, Barrett, or the 3 libs change their opinion, Chip Roy is dead wrong.
Congressman Chip Roy says fixing it DOES NOT require a Constitutional Amendment.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:41 am to loogaroo
We had a better chance with SCOTUS than thinking Congress will actually do anything about it.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:41 am to SlowFlowPro
Roberts made damn sure this wasn't true, unfortunately
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:43 am to Flats
quote:The SCOTUS ruling negated that option. Kavanaugh held with the minority that Congress could take action.
It is until Congress takes action.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:45 am to SlowFlowPro
Perhaps an outright ban would not be possible, but they could pass laws to make it very difficult and the penalties egregious.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 8:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That power you cited doesn't overrule judicial review.
What does it do? The plain English would suggest that Congress can remove an item from the jurisdiction of the Courts.
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News