- 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: Chip Roy claims birthright citizenship can be ended by congressional bill.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:22 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Uh, yeah you can in our system. It's the Supremacy Clause + an Amendment to the Constitution.
Robert's argument denied that "domicile" was not required so there is no supremacy clause in play.
Unlike Obergefel where the court simply said that the family law statues of one state were better than the family law statutes of another state.
1
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:24 am to Chip82
quote:
That is exactly what it says.
Here is the exact text
quote:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Nothing indicating your stance is supported by the actual text.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:26 am to Chip82
quote:
Robert's argument denied that "domicile" was not required so there is no supremacy clause in play.
Then you concede that your argument loses what little rhetorical value it may have had.
You just engaged in rhetorical Seppuku
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
As long as Louisiana has been a part of the United States, it's been under common law federally.
That is a complete and total lie.
If you look at adjudications from the era some citizenship documents identify common law jurisdiction and others identify civil law jurisdiction.
Louisiana to this very day still uses civil law as a state court foundation of the adjudiation process.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:29 am to Chip82
quote:
That is a complete and total lie.
So Supreme Court rulings, which are based in common law, didn't apply in Louisiana (or the Louisiana territory prior to statehood)?
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Then you concede that your argument loses what little rhetorical value it may have had.
Not at all...
"and of the State in which they reside" is right within the Amendment.
Justice Thomas pointed out in his dissent that Robert's stance was both historically and legally inaccurate.
In other words, Thomas called Roberts a LIAR. Which is true!
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:34 am to Chip82
quote:
Justice Thomas pointed out in his dissent that Robert's stance was both historically and legally inaccurate.
In other words, Thomas called Roberts a LIAR. Which is true!
Did Thomas write a concurrence or dissent?
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:38 am to SlowFlowPro
If they make it illegal for women to remain or come into the U.S. if they are not a citizen and so far into their pregnancy then you will not have to worry about it. So there are in fact loop holes they could create to keep it from happening and it wouldn't be unconstitutional. So Chip Roy is correct.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So Supreme Court rulings, which are based in common law, didn't apply in Louisiana (or the Louisiana territory prior to statehood)?
Roberts used a Common Law definition of jurisdiction that was specifically rejected in one of articles within the Declaration of Independence.
For example, if we used the British Common law definition of Natural Born, Kamala Harris would not be eligible to become president.
The bottom line is that Roberts fabricated his own reason for voting while totally ignoring tons of evidence about original intent and original implementation.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 11:40 am
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:41 am to Flats
Also, while the SC may have appeal jurisdiction, it is basically 100% discretionary whether they take a case up or not.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:43 am to SlowFlowPro
You need to read Thomas' dissent for yourself.
It is 100% accurate as it explains and proves every mistake that Roberts made.
It is 100% accurate as it explains and proves every mistake that Roberts made.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:45 am to Chip82
quote:
Roberts used a Common Law definition of jurisdiction that was specifically rejected in one of articles within the Declaration of Independence.
Oh boy
quote:
For example, if we used the British Common law definition of Natural Born, Kamala Harris would not be eligible to become president.
She was born in Oakland, CA
quote:
The bottom line is that Roberts fabricated
Roberts did nothing but confirm WKA, which has been the clearly established law for going on 150 years
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:46 am to Tigergreg
quote:
The legislation would have to be tailored and be specific.
I'm sure they can draft something very specific to outlaw private gun ownership.
If the constitution can be changed by legislation, go big or go home.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:48 am to Hondo Blacksheep
Also, while the SC may have appeal jurisdiction, it is basically 100% discretionary whether they take a case up or not.
Not if the states start to implement it...
Texas has already stopped issuing birth certificates. Governor Abbott is fighting this on several fronts.
Roberts only overturned an EO.
Not if the states start to implement it...
Texas has already stopped issuing birth certificates. Governor Abbott is fighting this on several fronts.
Roberts only overturned an EO.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
She was born in Oakland, CA
Exactly...
British Common law only looks at the status of the mother. Not where the birth takes place. Neither of her parents were citizens at the moment of her birth.
According to British Common law she is not Natural Born.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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.
Something has to change. Because those on both sides of the argument don't have pure motives. But failure to do so will screw this country up in the future beyond the time you and I are on the planet in the live form.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:58 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
First of all, Marbury is from 1803 and is one of the basic pillars of our nation
The text I posted is from the original document from 1787.
quote:
Second, its because the Constitution says it.
The Constitution says what I posted as well.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 12:09 pm to Flats
The law was poorly written. The amendment needs to be address.
Unfortunately congress wants to destroy the USA so they wont fix it even though it is their job to do so.
So presently the only path going forward other than fixing congress (haha) is to keep pregnant foreigners out of the USA.
We need to do that temporarily until either the SC can incorrectly "interpret" the law or Congress can be cleansed of the trash that it is.
Unfortunately congress wants to destroy the USA so they wont fix it even though it is their job to do so.
So presently the only path going forward other than fixing congress (haha) is to keep pregnant foreigners out of the USA.
We need to do that temporarily until either the SC can incorrectly "interpret" the law or Congress can be cleansed of the trash that it is.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 12:31 pm to Flats
Congress can take away jurisdiction from Courts it created. It cannot take away the judicial power granted in the Constitution.
If Congress exercised the power you are talking about then the question would be whether a litigant could go straight to SCOTUS, or if the litigant would first file in state court and work its way to SCOTUS.
If Congress exercised the power you are talking about then the question would be whether a litigant could go straight to SCOTUS, or if the litigant would first file in state court and work its way to SCOTUS.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 7/9/26 at 12:40 pm to JimEverett
quote:
It cannot take away the judicial power granted in the Constitution.
What takes this power away from Congress?
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.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News