- 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 10:32 am to Tigergreg
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:32 am to Tigergreg
quote:
The intention was about admitting slaves.
That is not what the Constitution says. It could have been written to limit its application as you desire, but it was not.
0
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:32 am to TBoy
quote:
subject to the jurisdiction of United States.
This is where you take what words mean now and pretend they always mean what you’re saying they mean now.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:32 am to dgnx6
quote:
The constitution doesn't say we have to allow birthing tourism.
That is a possible narrow example that does not fall within WKA
The irony is that if this case is as big as a bloodbath as it seems to be, Trump's administration may ultimately close the path for that potential exception.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:34 am to TBoy
quote:
Are you really proposing "conception right citizenship?"
Your argument is that all the baby had to do was peak its head out of the mom's vaginal canal and it's a citizen. Because it never lived anywhere else.
That's your argument.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:34 am to TBoy
quote:
People who don’t assimilate are invaders Do we need to deport the Amish?
The Amish got here at the same time. They mind their business and have integrated well with us (providing high end carpentry, farmer markets etc)
Not remotely the same thing as someone named Mohamed moving into an urban area, blasting their call to prayer, and insisting on subsidies and special treatment
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 10:35 am
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The irony is that if this case is as big as a bloodbath as it seems to be, Trump's administration may ultimately close the path for that potential exception.
That is a good point. Since Trump did this by executive decree, it opens the door for language in the opinion that would preclude attempting to do the same by Congressional action.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:36 am to dgnx6
quote:
Your argument is that all the baby had to do was peak its head out of the mom's vaginal canal and it's a citizen. Because it never lived anywhere else.
I have never heard the miracle of birth described in the manner in which you describe it. You must not have children.
Edit: But to your silly description, yes, when my children peaked their heads out of their mother's womb, they were immediately citizens of the United States.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 10:38 am
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:36 am to Hot Carl
quote:
We don’t need SCOTUS trying to ascribe intention on top of their actual job of interpreting laws by the letters in which they were actually written.
Scalia thought there was more nuance to the issue than that. “Intention” may not be the most accurate term but if we know how a law was enforced at the time it does provide valuable insight into what the words meant and therefore should mean. That reality can also put a bit of a leash on how creative they get when they “interpret”.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:37 am to TBoy
you were making good points until the end. couldnt help it 
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:38 am to Flats
quote:
Scalia thought there was more nuance to the issue than that. “Intention” may not be the most accurate term but if we know how a law was enforced at the time it does provide valuable insight into what the words meant and therefore should mean.
Wong Kim Ark does a beautiful job of this, fwiw
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:39 am to SlowFlowPro
The legal autist has spoken but I don’t blame you because you sound just as “intelligent” as Roberts and Jackson. It must be a law school requirement
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
A distinction without a (legal) difference
The concept did not exist at the time and was created by Congress. Congress can't supercede the constitution
so we are bound by their incomplete wisdom to predict the future
but at the same time you hold that they would totally agree with any interpretations modern leftists want to choose for the words they used to frame their actual intent???
So new concepts can be introduced to the benefit of one party and opposing parties have to suffer the consequences ??
SO - just because the founders did not have to foresight to put in words that would preclude an alien from MARs to plop their spaceship down and drop a 2-headed, 6-legged 'citizen' and therefore the parent martians are free to stay === and demand a pipeline into the nations bank account to satisfy whatever 'need' they may have to keep them fat and happy according to their interpretations of what they need???
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:40 am to Rip Torner
quote:
The legal autist has spoken but I don’t blame you because you sound just as “intelligent” as Roberts and Jackson. It must be a law school requirement
The legal profession profits off of this stuff, they’re just looking out for themselves.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 10:41 am
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:41 am to Covingtontiger77
We'll be 99% Chinese by the year 2100.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:41 am to DeBoar
quote:
The legal profession profits off of this stuff, they’re just looking out for themselves.
I'm sure the lawyers would tell you that everyone has to pay their legal bills, whether they are here legally or not.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:42 am to Covingtontiger77
We need to outlaw a pregnant woman being allowed to travel here, without signing a waiver
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is because it could not exist at the time
That concept was developed later by Congress
Very good! Now, all together class… What does that mean?
*children in unison*
“That the original intent of the 14th Amendment could not have been to allow birthright citizenship as a part of the formal immigration process.”
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:44 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
SO - just because the founders did not have to foresight to put in words that would preclude an alien from MARs to plop their spaceship down and drop a 2-headed, 6-legged 'citizen' and therefore the parent martians are free to stay === and demand a pipeline into the nations bank account to satisfy whatever 'need' they may have to keep them fat and happy according to their interpretations of what they need???
Well said sir
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:44 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
so we are bound by their incomplete wisdom to predict the future
No. We can always amend the Constitution
quote:
So new concepts can be introduced to the benefit of one party
I am not discussing this in terms of partisanship. Nobody should. That's what KBJ does.
quote:
SO - just because the founders did not have to foresight to put in words that would preclude an alien from MARs to plop their spaceship down and drop a 2-headed, 6-legged 'citizen' and therefore the parent martians are free to stay === and demand a pipeline into the nations bank account to satisfy whatever 'need' they may have to keep them fat and happy according to their interpretations of what they need???
That's why we have an amendment process.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:45 am to TBoy
quote:
Do we need to deport the Amish?
You are a living, breathing “this is fine” meme…I hope your progeny suffers
Page 4 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News