- 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 12:42 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
Posted on 7/9/26 at 12:42 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
Something has to change.
The Constitution has an amendment process
0
Posted on 7/9/26 at 12:49 pm to Flats
I see what you are saying now.
Reading that, Congress can take away SCOTUS' appellate jurisdiction, but it cannot touch SCOTUS' original jurisdiction. Since original jurisdiction would not apply to a person challenging a birthright citizenship claim then Congress cld bar SCOTUS from hearing the case.
Interesting.
Reading that, Congress can take away SCOTUS' appellate jurisdiction, but it cannot touch SCOTUS' original jurisdiction. Since original jurisdiction would not apply to a person challenging a birthright citizenship claim then Congress cld bar SCOTUS from hearing the case.
Interesting.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 12:58 pm to JimEverett
I got something Congress can do and theres nothing Roberts and his stooges can do about it.
Update the penalties concerning illegal immigration. Make it a felony to cross our borders illegally.Make it a felony to overstay a visa.
Also anyone assisting giving sanctuary to or helping an illegal in any way is guilty of same.
Mama's brat might be a Citizen, but she ain't. Neither are the clowns that helped her have the brat in any way. Lock them all up for a long time. Seize the vessel she came in or the plane she flew in. Tell those hospitals that are advertising, you birth em? Youre going to jail.
The bleeding heart sanctuary mayors and governors? Cuff em and stuff em. That has been a long time coming. And it will stick. The paid morons in the street? Same.
Update the penalties concerning illegal immigration. Make it a felony to cross our borders illegally.Make it a felony to overstay a visa.
Also anyone assisting giving sanctuary to or helping an illegal in any way is guilty of same.
Mama's brat might be a Citizen, but she ain't. Neither are the clowns that helped her have the brat in any way. Lock them all up for a long time. Seize the vessel she came in or the plane she flew in. Tell those hospitals that are advertising, you birth em? Youre going to jail.
The bleeding heart sanctuary mayors and governors? Cuff em and stuff em. That has been a long time coming. And it will stick. The paid morons in the street? Same.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 7/9/26 at 1:00 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Reading that, Congress can take away SCOTUS' appellate jurisdiction, but it cannot touch SCOTUS' original jurisdiction.
1. I'm not a lawyer. My first post asked what this meant and nobody seems to be able to answer.
2. How I read it is that you're correct, original jurisdiction can't be touched by congress, but original jurisdiction is narrowly defined in Section 2. It looks like it's saying the default beyond those parameters is that the Court has jurisdiction but Congress can create exceptions to that if it doesn't fall under the listed categories.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 1:05 pm to antibarner
quote:
I got something Congress can do and theres nothing Roberts and his stooges can do about it.
Going to need a lot more money and lawyers because it is well established that everyone facing a felony charge is entitled to counsel. That is te reason out immigration system is set uo as a civil penaly system - not requirement that someone facing deportation is entitled to counsel.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 1:08 pm to Flats
Yeah - I think that is valid reasoning from the text.
I was taught, like I guess everyone, that Congress could strip jurisdiction from the courts it created - district courts, circuit courts , and of course things like bankruptcy courts. But I guess I either forgot or was never taught what you bring up.
Even if a case comes up through state courts that has a federal question, Congress - from the text you bring up - could deny SCOTUS the ability to hear the case.
I was taught, like I guess everyone, that Congress could strip jurisdiction from the courts it created - district courts, circuit courts , and of course things like bankruptcy courts. But I guess I either forgot or was never taught what you bring up.
Even if a case comes up through state courts that has a federal question, Congress - from the text you bring up - could deny SCOTUS the ability to hear the case.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 2:04 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Going to need a lot more money and lawyers because it is well established that everyone facing a felony charge is entitled to counsel.
Fine. They can sit in jail while they wait.Or the Lefties can bail them out and we can put an ankle bracelet on them No more not knowing who's here.How many will get charges piled on? Expensive? Yes. But we will get control of illegal immigration, period. This is how you round them ALL up. Not to mention everyone helping them can get tied up in the legal system too.
This will cost The Left an enormous amount of money. And in the end they'll still go to jail because theyre guilty as hell. Sooner or later they'll get the message.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 7/9/26 at 2:21 pm to Flats
quote:
1. I'm not a lawyer. My first post asked what this meant and nobody seems to be able to answer.
2. How I read it is that you're correct, original jurisdiction can't be touched by congress, but original jurisdiction is narrowly defined in Section 2. It looks like it's saying the default beyond those parameters is that the Court has jurisdiction but Congress can create exceptions to that if it doesn't fall under the listed categories.
Not correct
Posted on 7/9/26 at 2:25 pm to Flats
quote:
The Constitution says what I posted as well.
And you read the document in its entirety. Ways to amend the constitution are laid out.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 2:26 pm to Flats
quote:One could ask the same question of purpose relative to the Constitution if a simple majority of Congress could negate it.
So they can except a law from judical review unless SCOTUS doesn't like it? What's the purpose of this power that really isn't a power at all if you're correct?
Posted on 7/9/26 at 2:31 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
One could ask the same question of purpose relative to the Constitution if a simple majority of Congress could negate it.
Exactly. It is a power of Congress but it is not unlimited. It is a limited power
It does not apply to completely stripping rights enshrined in the constitution.
The Constitution lays out how to do that, therefore Congress can't do it another way and then say "no you can't review this"
And before you say "it doesn't say that"
It does...by specifically stating how to Amend the Constitution
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 7/9/26 at 2:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:So, the opinion is really long and I just don't feel like reading it all. While I get the majority disagreed with the minority on the matter before the court, did any of them actually address the legislative path? I mean, what is the utility of saying 1 of 9?
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 2:49 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Not correct
I think he is correct
Exceptions Clause
quote:
The Court stated, “We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words.” 13 Since its decision in McCardle, the Supreme Court has upheld numerous legislative limits on its jurisdiction.14
Posted on 7/9/26 at 2:52 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
One could ask the same question of purpose relative to the Constitution if a simple majority of Congress could negate it.
Members of SCOTUS and Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Why a fear of one body doing it and not the other?
Posted on 7/9/26 at 2:54 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Reading that, Congress can take away SCOTUS' appellate jurisdiction, but it cannot touch SCOTUS' original jurisdiction. Since original jurisdiction would not apply to a person challenging a birthright citizenship claim then Congress cld bar SCOTUS from hearing the case.
That is not remotely correct.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 2:56 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
did any of them actually address the legislative path?
They don't need to
Once the ruling became that birthright citizenship is a right enshrined in the constitution, there quite literally is no legislative path
There is only one path: Amend
Posted on 7/9/26 at 2:57 pm to TBoy
quote:
That is not remotely correct.
I'll take your word over the text of the Constitution.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 2:59 pm to JimEverett
quote:
I'll take your word over the text of the Constitution.
That's the safe play.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:14 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Ways to amend the constitution are laid out.
I'm not talking about an amendment, I'm talking about how it specifically gives power to Congress to make remove items from judicial purview if certain conditions are met.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:23 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
therefore Congress can't do it another way and then say "no you can't review this"
What do you think that section means?
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News