- 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 3:26 pm to Flats
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:26 pm to Flats
sigh.
I give up.
You are wrong, I am sorry to say.
Congress cannot strip a constitutional right away and then hide behind the exclusions clause.
This is among the literally oldest precedent we have had.
I don't agree with Roberts's decision in anyway, but he made it, and now there is only one path
I give up.
You are wrong, I am sorry to say.
Congress cannot strip a constitutional right away and then hide behind the exclusions clause.
This is among the literally oldest precedent we have had.
I don't agree with Roberts's decision in anyway, but he made it, and now there is only one path
1
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:27 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Members of SCOTUS and Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Why a fear of one body doing it and not the other?
We have a lot of Emperor's New Clothes syndrome when it comes to the judiciary.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:28 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
You are wrong, I am sorry to say.
That seems to be all you're capable of saying. "You're wrong."
You certainly don't want to answer any questions about the actual text of the Constitution.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:32 pm to Flats
Neither do you since you just ignore Article 5.
You are not a lawyer, I get that. You have to read the Constitution in its entirety.
Let me try this another way.
Give me a brief example/wording of Legislation that Congress could pass that would end Birthright Citizenship, strip away that citizenship for those that have already been granted it, and that the Exclusions clause would then apply to.
You are not a lawyer, I get that. You have to read the Constitution in its entirety.
Let me try this another way.
Give me a brief example/wording of Legislation that Congress could pass that would end Birthright Citizenship, strip away that citizenship for those that have already been granted it, and that the Exclusions clause would then apply to.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:35 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Neither do you since you just ignore Article 5.
No more than you ignore Article 3.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:38 pm to Fun Bunch
SCOTUS disagrees with you.
That is fine, but the better course here would be for you to explain why SCOTUS is wrong in how it interprets the Exclusions Clause.
That is fine, but the better course here would be for you to explain why SCOTUS is wrong in how it interprets the Exclusions Clause.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:40 pm to Flats
I don't
The 5th gives a pathway to amending the consitution
Therefore Congress cannot amend it by legislation.
Making the Exclusions clause completely irrelevant
Now let's see a brief rundown of your proposed legislation
The 5th gives a pathway to amending the consitution
Therefore Congress cannot amend it by legislation.
Making the Exclusions clause completely irrelevant
Now let's see a brief rundown of your proposed legislation
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:46 pm to Fun Bunch
The legislation:
Congress, through its power granted by Article III Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution declares that The Supreme Court of the United States shall not have appellate jurisdiction over birthright citizenship claims.
Congress, through its power granted by Article III Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution declares that The Supreme Court of the United States shall not have appellate jurisdiction over birthright citizenship claims.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:55 pm to Fun Bunch
Kavanaugh disagrees, and he would have at least two more on his side.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 4:00 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
The 5th gives a pathway to amending the consitution
And Article III gives congress a pathway to remove the court from the legislative process.
I'm not surprised to find that there are tensions in the balancing act they attempted, but I reject the philosophy that looks at those tensions and always sides with whatever gives the judiciary the most power.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 7/9/26 at 4:05 pm to Flats
quote:Not excepting interpretation of the Constitution itself.
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.
E.g., The Exceptions Clause allows Congress to do things like: Establish Lower Federal Courts, block SCOTUS from hearing an appeal until a plaintiff has exhausted other legal avenues, or closing one specific statutory doorway to the Supreme Court in cases like McCardle while still preserving other avenues and constitutional rights
Posted on 7/9/26 at 4:07 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
E.g., The Exceptions Clause allows Congress to do things like: Establish Lower Federal Courts, block SCOTUS from hearing an appeal until a plaintiff has exhausted other legal avenues, or closing one specific statutory doorway to the Supreme Court in cases like McCardle while still preserving other avenues and constitutional rights
That is not SCOTUS' interpretation of the Exceptions Clause. And it doesn't seem to fit with the actual language of the Constitution.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 7/9/26 at 4:14 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
Massie is not a Senator, know your congressional people.
Not only not a senator, but he's also a vocal opponent of birthright citizenship.
Rep. Thomas Massie said he signed a Supreme Court brief supporting President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. He argued that giving children of undocumented immigrants automatic U.S. citizenship incentivizes unlawful immigration and stressed that ending the practice is necessary to protect national sovereignty.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 4:21 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Therefore Congress cannot amend it by legislation.
Congress doesn't need to go outside of the 14th Amendment.
Section 5 of the Amendment states:
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Congress can define "jurisdiction" with regard to the last sentence of the 1st section where it states:
"... and of the state wherein they reside."
Again, citizenship during the 19th century involved becoming the citizen of a state before the claim could be made of being a US citizen. In other words, you could not have one without the other. And to petition the state to begin with required domicile to obtain "standing."
Posted on 7/9/26 at 4:22 pm to Tigergreg
Kavanaugh can call it a roadmap if he wants, but the road still runs straight into the 14th Amendment. It says if you’re born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you’re a citizen.
And folks here unlawfully are absolutely subject to that jurisdiction. They can be arrested, prosecuted, taxed, sued, deported, and locked up under American law. So you don’t get to say they’re under our law when it’s time to punish them, then suddenly outside our law when their child is born.
Congress can tinker with statutes all day long. What it cannot do is rewrite the Citizenship Clause with a regular bill. That takes a constitutional amendment. Calling that a roadmap is mighty generous. Looks more like drawing a door on a brick wall.
And folks here unlawfully are absolutely subject to that jurisdiction. They can be arrested, prosecuted, taxed, sued, deported, and locked up under American law. So you don’t get to say they’re under our law when it’s time to punish them, then suddenly outside our law when their child is born.
Congress can tinker with statutes all day long. What it cannot do is rewrite the Citizenship Clause with a regular bill. That takes a constitutional amendment. Calling that a roadmap is mighty generous. Looks more like drawing a door on a brick wall.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 4:26 pm to Chip82
Section 5 lets Congress enforce the 14th Amendment. It does not let Congress saddle it up and ride it in the opposite direction. The Citizenship Clause is plain. born here, subject to our jurisdiction, citizen here. State citizenship follows from that. It is not some courthouse prerequisite a newborn has to clear.
And folks here unlawfully are still under American law. We arrest them, prosecute them, detain them, deport them, and punish them under our jurisdiction. You don’t get to count them inside the fence for penalties, then outside the fence for citizenship.
That reading is trying to hitch a wagon to a horse that ain’t there.
And folks here unlawfully are still under American law. We arrest them, prosecute them, detain them, deport them, and punish them under our jurisdiction. You don’t get to count them inside the fence for penalties, then outside the fence for citizenship.
That reading is trying to hitch a wagon to a horse that ain’t there.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 7/9/26 at 4:26 pm to Tigergreg
quote:
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
Great, now ask AI to tell you whether 4 is more than 5, or not.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 4:33 pm to Tigergreg
Kav's a pussy for voting the EO down
Posted on 7/9/26 at 4:34 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The Exceptions Clause allows Congress to do things like:
Also like this: making exceptions to the appellate authority of the Court.
What you & Fun Bunch seem to be saying is that Congress can make exceptions to the appellate authority of the Court unless the Court says "nah, you can't do that." Which means you really don't believe they have that power at all.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 5:23 pm to CrystalPreserves
quote:
Section 5 lets Congress enforce the 14th Amendment. It does not let Congress saddle it up and ride it in the opposite direction.
Which is what John Roberts did.
People forget that the Supreme Court can't nullify legislation. Only determine if a case brought before it is Constitutional or not.
The EO mirrored the intent of the writers of the Amendment.
Thomas pointed out that Roberts position was both historically and legally inaccurate.
If Congress writes legislation the accurately reflects both the intent and rollout of the 14th Amendment they can't ignore it. Congresses ability to legislate is built into the Amendment.
Everybody knows that Roberts didn't justify his position with accurate facts.
Thomas ended up calling Roberts a liar on two different points within his dissent.
Based on the reality that Thomas made an airtight case for "domicile," Governor Abbott has already called for the State of Texas to withhold issuing birth certificates.
.
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 5:26 pm
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News