- 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: Listening to SCOTUS Birthright argument: WE ARE FRICKED
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:39 pm to DeplorableTerrorizer
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:39 pm to DeplorableTerrorizer
quote:
Yes, because you or the mother had citizenship to confer onto the child. You can't give your child something you dont have yourself.
If citizenship is a matrilineal privilege, only conferred by a citizen mother, only one of Trump’s kids, Tiffany, is a citizen. The others are not citizens because their mothers were not citizens of the US when they were born.
1
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:39 pm to uggabugga
quote:
Is this what the 14th amendment intended?
Was this what the 2nd amendment intended?
See how bad that argument is?
The Founders understood that developments in society/technology create issues with our Constitution. That's why created the amendment process.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:40 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
It was NOT crafted to allow citizenship for every piece of shite that violates our borders.
Babies born here did not violate our borders. They were born here.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:40 pm to TBoy
#MuhHitler
At least you're consistent. 2 points to Pierced Septum Hufflepuff!
At least you're consistent. 2 points to Pierced Septum Hufflepuff!
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:42 pm to uggabugga
I guess we'll see if Roberts alters the definition of what "born or naturalized" actually means in order to do what's "right" for the country, as he did with "a tax" and Obamacare.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Was this what the 2nd amendment intended?
Apparently so. I'm delighted the gun debate is finally over. And many restrictive laws are about to crash and burn.
Right?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:49 pm to CleverUserName
We can hope.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:50 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:The 'subject to the jurisdiction' language of the 14th amendment excludes the children of diplomats and the children of invading armies, or at least it was interpreted that way. The principle of that could and should be applied to illegal immigration, which constitutes an invasion. The principle being if you are by definition temporary your kids are not citizens (ambassador's kids) and also if you not here with permission (kids of invaders) your kids are not citizens. There was not really a concept of wholesale illegal immigration when the 14th amendment was passed
There is nothing constitutional about birthright citizenship. This was never the intention.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 12:51 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We can hope.
Problem is........ the "militia" the 2nd amendment refers to is only white males at the time the amendment was written.
And it hasn't been amended either.
IF we are reading the exact wording and implementation, as the 14th is, we got a lot of people that need to turn theirs over to the white male population.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Was this what the 2nd amendment intended?
In a roundabout way, yes.
The 2nd Amendment wasn't so much about firearms as it was about the citizenry being able to band together to fend off both foreign aggressors and/or domestic despots. In doing so, it was a given that the citizenry would need the right to keep and bear arms enumerated regardless of militia membership (thus why membership was never mandatory for firearm ownership). With that, it was understood that the common citizen (if they had the funds) would be able to bare any arms an infantryman was able to bear.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:07 pm to Bard
Yes it's a bad argument (either way)
Society and technology change, but the constitutional provisions remain static.
If society or technology becomes a problem, we can amend the Constitution to deal with it. This applies to the 2A or 14A
Society and technology change, but the constitutional provisions remain static.
If society or technology becomes a problem, we can amend the Constitution to deal with it. This applies to the 2A or 14A
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:09 pm to Covingtontiger77
If you are born in any country in the world you are a natural citizen of said country
Government needs to fix the system first. If you're born here, you deserve to be a citizen.
Government needs to fix the system first. If you're born here, you deserve to be a citizen.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:09 pm to Covingtontiger77
This was a long shot anyway.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Society and technology change, but the constitutional provisions remain static.
It just appears that opinionated "interpretation" is the huge problem.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Was this what the 2nd amendment intended?
Damn right. It was intended to protect from government. So yeah, muskets wouldnt suffice now
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Founders understood that developments in society/technology create issues with our Constitution. That's why created the amendment process.
We can’t even get Congress to pass legislation with 80% voter support
We will never see another constitutional amendment. The main reason is ironically because of unchecked immigration. We don’t have the homogeneous society to ever be able to get the level of support needed to ratify a constitutional amendment
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:10 pm to bleedsgarnet
quote:
If you're born here, you deserve to be a citizen.
Why?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:10 pm to deltaland
quote:
We can’t even get Congress to pass legislation with 80% voter support
Not really relevant to the discussion.
That argument would require ignoring the Constitution.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:10 pm to bleedsgarnet
quote:
If you are born in any country in the world you are a natural citizen of said country
That’s not entirely true.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:11 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
It just appears that opinionated "interpretation" is the huge problem.
Yes Trump followed bad advice on this EO. That's the huge problem
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 1:11 pm
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News