- 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
0
Posted on 6/22/17 at 6:45 am to mahdragonz
quote:
It would have to be a repeal of the 14th amendment.
Nope. All it would take is for SCOTUS to say that is not what the 14th really means.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 6:50 am to Loserman
quote:
It has been misapplied by leftist USC justices since then to included those it was never written for
I get what you're saying, but the wording doesn't allow for "misapplication". Section 1:
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That's not ambiguous, but rather pretty straight forward.
Are you trying to say judges should have the power to ignore/overrule the Constitution?
Posted on 6/22/17 at 6:54 am to skrayper
quote:
Are you trying to say judges should have the power to ignore/overrule the Constitution?
It seems that they do have that power.
eta: They shouldn't
This post was edited on 6/22/17 at 6:57 am
Posted on 6/22/17 at 6:55 am to 225bred
Birthright citizenship needs to go. It makes no sense in this day and age.
At least one parent should be required to be an American citizen.
At least one parent should be required to be an American citizen.
This post was edited on 6/22/17 at 6:56 am
Posted on 6/22/17 at 6:55 am to skrayper
quote:
Are you trying to say judges should have the power to ignore/overrule the Constitution?
I don't think anyone would say this.
The SC justices would rule not only on the law but the INTENT of the law.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 6:57 am to Wtodd
That sounds awfully a lot like judicial activism.
Has this ever been brought up to the Supreme Court before?
Has this ever been brought up to the Supreme Court before?
Posted on 6/22/17 at 6:58 am to Scruffy
quote:
That sounds awfully a lot like judicial activism
Explain.....I'm not following
quote:
Has this ever been brought up to the Supreme Court before?
No
Posted on 6/22/17 at 7:00 am to Wtodd
Word of the law vs intent 
Based on the word of the law, anyone born in the USA should be a citizen.
Intent determinations require a subjective stances. Unless there is information out there which explicitly states the purpose, I don't like the use of subjective determinations and find them problematic.
Based on the word of the law, anyone born in the USA should be a citizen.
Intent determinations require a subjective stances. Unless there is information out there which explicitly states the purpose, I don't like the use of subjective determinations and find them problematic.
This post was edited on 6/22/17 at 7:02 am
Posted on 6/22/17 at 7:03 am to Wtodd
quote:
That sounds awfully a lot like judicial activism
Explain.....I'm not following
Here's what was originally said:
quote:
It has been misapplied by leftist USC justices since then to included those it was never written for
The problem is that the wording doesn't allow for "misapplication". We can believe it should not have been all-encompassing, but the simple fact of the matter is that it was written with a very specific text. To change that, it would require a ratification of change to the 14th Amendment. Anything other than that is judicial activism.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 7:07 am to Scruffy
quote:
Based on the word of the law, anyone born in the USA should be a citizen.
Agree but so does the wording for Ex Post Facto laws (the wording is VERY specific).......YET Congress passed the Lautenberg Amendment.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 7:18 am to Wtodd
That is a case of judicial activism, isn't it?
I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy the melt if it happened via that route, but I'm not a fan of the tactic.
I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy the melt if it happened via that route, but I'm not a fan of the tactic.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 8:06 am to Scruffy
quote:
That is a case of judicial activism, isn't it?
In the case of the Lautenberg Amendment absolutely. There is simply no other possible reason.
In ruling against anchor babies, I believe the SCOTUS would have to rule on the intent of the law bc there is no way the framers could have foreseen illegals showing up and having babies and thinking that was OK......just no way. And FTR I don't see this as judicial activism but it would be judicial activism IF they ruled anchor babies were US citizens.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 8:49 am to skrayper
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is the big sticking point. When the amendment was drafted, it was questioned whether or not it was meant to apply to Native American tribesmen living in U.S. territories. The answer was no, because they are subjects to the jurisdiction of their tribe, a sovereign nation. That treatment has been changed by statute which now recognizes Native Americans as having dual citizenship with the United States and their sovereign tribal nation.
Legal immigrants and those with temporary visas have been interpreted to be "subject to the jurisdiction therein" because they have purposefully gotten permission from the United States government to be here. This was decided in United States v. Wong By getting permission from the government to be here, they have thus "targeted the forum" and "availed themselves of the jurisdiction" under the Pennoyer v. Neff test for minimum contacts by which one is subject to the jurisdiction of a court.
No such SCOTUS ruling has ever been made regarding the status of the children of illegal immigrants, but our government has presumed that they are covered by United States v. Wong, but that is not certain until SCOTUS rules on it for certain.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 8:50 am to 225bred
This needs to happen ASAP. No you don't need to amend the constitution. All that needs to happen for me to be somewhat happy is a clean bill passed by congress and signed by trump. Than the Supreme Court can review it and for me to be really happy they will say it's the law of the land.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 8:52 am to kingbob
quote:
When the amendment was drafted, it was questioned whether or not it was meant to apply to Native American tribesmen living in U.S. territories. The answer was no
Spot on Bob......that's why 60 years later the Indian Citizenship Act was written SO if the 14th covered everyone born on US soil then the ICA wouldn't have been needed.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 10:43 am to jb4
quote:
This needs to happen ASAP. No you don't need to amend the constitution. All that needs to happen for me to be somewhat happy is a clean bill passed by congress and signed by trump. Than the Supreme Court can review it and for me to be really happy they will say it's the law of the land.
There needs to be another Trump appointee on the SCOTUS. Be careful for what you wish for once this issue gets there because you may not get the result you expect.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News