- 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: Here’s Why the Era of Lawless Leftist Judges is Likely Ending Soon
Posted on 4/20/25 at 11:34 am to Toomer Deplorable
Posted on 4/20/25 at 11:34 am to Toomer Deplorable
Good troll. 9/10.
1
Posted on 4/20/25 at 11:35 am to evil cockroach
quote:
Good troll. 9/10.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 12:34 pm to GumboPot
quote:
The biggest problem with “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is it’s open to a wide range of interpretations.
How so?
Again, the Wong decision unambiguously stipulates how to determine whether children born “within the realm” to “aliens” are considered to be “natural born” citizens:
quote:
Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction of the King.
This passage from the Wong decision states in clear language that children born during the “hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions” — i.e. illegal entry into a sovereign nation — are not considered natural-born citizens since these children were born to “alien enemies” and thus not born under the jurisdiction of the king.
This post was edited on 4/20/25 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 4/20/25 at 2:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:So you think they should have taken on this issue through a better case? I can understand that.
The specific case they chose to use makes me think it's less likely they do away with these injunctions at the district court level in totality, because of the subject matter of the case. The birthright citizenship EO/litigation is probably the one 2025 EO with the strongest history and precedent (against it on its face) in addition to the largest issue if the EO is left in place while the case is litigated.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 3:49 pm to Toomer Deplorable
Ya can’t fix stupid
Posted on 4/20/25 at 3:54 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
This a sword that cuts both ways bro. During Biden administration, we filed a ton of lawsuits doing the exact same thing in Texas and conservative jurisdiction.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 4:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
ending birthright citizenship should have been part of Reagan's 1986 Amnesty bill.
=========
You need more than a bill. You'd need a Constitutional Amendment or a major reversal of very old precedent.
Congress can't override Constitutional rights in the Constitution.
So you are certain that the ones who wanted to give citizenship to slaves were also setting the stage for "birthright citizenship" whereby anybody can just wade across the Rio Grande and drop a brand new "citizen" that the rest of us are obligated to care for, feed, and educate for the rest of its life PLUS making all the new baby citizen's close relatives permanent residents also, with a surefire lane to citizenship also.
Everything in the US Constitution as the Founders left it make common sense logic - this does not even come close to even acceptable, let alone an enshrined 'right'.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 4:02 pm to evil cockroach
quote:
Ya can’t fix stupid
I’m still not following you. What is stupid?
Posted on 4/20/25 at 4:09 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
SCOTUS is not conservative. Roberts and Barrett are disgraceful.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 4:17 pm to TigerFanatic99
quote:
Ok, so do conservatives want the constitution interpreted purely by the text as written, or interpreted for today's day and age? Textualism or purposivism?
not sure I understand you confusion.
Our constitution was written to enshrine what is commonly referred to as "common law" ==== meaning real basic common sense.
I think its purpose was to isolate the average public from having to defend against stupid interpretations that might occur to someone in the future in order to obtain an undeserved political advantage - i.e. establishing a totalitarian state.
Anything that doesn't make common sense SHOULD be against the law - except in extraordinary circumstances.
The fourteenth amendment was written to remove the one glaring omission from that general purpose of the constitution - that of slavery.
Everything about the 14th was devoted to taking care of newly freed slaves - not to give future idiotic democrats a hole-card for producing new voting blocks en masse.
And the penchant the current democrat cult has in inventing new words, and redefining old words, you cannot trust them to have anything but nefarious intent when they propose anything that 'just doesn't sound right' - they are SCAM artists - period.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:40 pm to Branson
quote:
Please give just one example of illegal actions the administration has done towards the aliens. I will wait.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:43 pm to cajunandy
quote:
If they were going to take no action they would have denied the emergency application. I
Read the rest of my post
quote:
. I can see them developing a test to make the nationwide injunctions from the district court much more difficult on purely bureaucratic/admin actions, but keep it in place for Constitutional rights (like the birthright citizenship issue/case). Perhaps that's why they chose this case.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:43 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
Birthright citizenship should have ended 100 years ago, ending birthright citizenship should have been part of Reagan's 1986 Amnesty bill.
I really wish our founding fathers had included a sunset clause on birthright citizenship in the Constitution. Maybe 100 years? That’s the one thing that disappoints me about them.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:44 pm to Warfox
quote:
Ok sure, but it is NOT in the purview of lowly district court judges to say yes or no to the PRESIDENT of the United States.
Why not?
quote:
Only the Congress and Supreme Court have a constitutionally valid claim to this.
Why, specifically?
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:45 pm to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
Someone really has read much history regarding birthright citizenship
No I've read the controlling Supreme Court case many times and dissected it on here many times.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:46 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
There is no way the current 'drop a kid across the line and get free stuff for the entire family forever' shite was ever the intent of any constitutional amendment. No other civilized country falls for this shite.
I'm a textualist so this is irrelevant.
If you want to see the textualist analysis of this clause, read Wong Kim Ark
Note: when the Amendment and WKA were written, the concept of "illegal alien" really didn't exist how we have it now. That's a function of Congress in the early 20th century, and Congress can't overrule a Supreme Court case or the Constitution.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:47 pm to Riverside
quote:
Anyone who understands the context of the 14th Amendment understands that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language was meant to prevent the anchor baby phenomenon.
Read Wong Kim Ark and explain how your argument fits within the case (which is still binding).
WKA defines "subject to the jurisdiction of" in great detail with a textual-historical analysis of the language.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:49 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
We’ll eventually get to a point where AI removes the activism
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:51 pm to GumboPot
quote:
The biggest problem with “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is it’s open to a wide range of interpretations.
Wong Kim Ark gave the binding one for our constitutional analysis.
In great detail, with lots of textual and historical support for their explanation of the history and meaning of the language.
quote:
Congress really needs to step in and define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and define it as a baby born from a citizen mother.
Congress cannot. You'd need to amend the Constitution or have the Supreme Court overrule Wong Kim Ark.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:51 pm to High C
quote:
What about Constitutional rights not in the Constitution, smart guy?
We're discussing Constitutional rights explicitly in the Constitution (the 14A, to be specific.).
This isn't Roe and abortion.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News