- 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 12:12 pm to TBoy
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:12 pm to TBoy
quote:
"The left?" The Constitution of the United States is "the Left?"
Don't be stupid.
What part of the constitution allows birthright citizenship?
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
3
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:12 pm to uggabugga
quote:
What part of the constitution allows birthright citizenship?
the 14th Amendment
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:16 pm to Covingtontiger77
quote:
I doubt if it was that the 14th would have been crafted in such a way.
It was NOT crafted to allow citizenship for every piece of shite that violates our borders. This was solely the invention of the Supreme Court 30 years after the law was written.
Anyone claiming otherwise is an idiot or a liar. Read the words of the people who sponsored the bill. They explicitly state that it is not for foreigners.
There is literally no way to interpret the 14th to give citizenship to every illegal baby shat out on our soil if you are an honest person.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:18 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
It was NOT crafted to allow citizenship for every piece of shite that violates our borders. This was solely the invention of the Supreme Court 30 years after the law was written.
Except plenty of people were permitted birthright citizenship across the US after "violating our borders" long prior to the 14A even being passed.
quote:
There is literally no way to interpret the 14th to give citizenship to every illegal baby shat out on our soil if you are an honest person.
People who can read the words of the amendment and then analyze the historical usage of those words at the time can.
It was done in WKA. Try reading it.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:20 pm to uggabugga
What they didn't expect was unfettered abuse of the amendment to grant citizenship to slaves and their descendants by literal armies of invading foreign nationals who are dead set on looting the Treasury of American tax dollars for their own enrichment.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:21 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
What they didn't expect was unfettered abuse of the amendment to grant citizenship to slaves and their descendants by literal armies of invading foreign nationals who are dead set on looting the Treasury of American tax dollars for their own enrichment.
The founders didn't anticipate assault rifles
This is why we have the amendment process.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:21 pm to TBoy
Wrong
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
I don’t like the effects of the interpretation, but (unlike so many posters here, evidently) I am not a constitutional lawyer.
What I will say is exactly what Trump said when Hillary tried to claim he doesn’t pay taxes.
If you don’t like the law, then change the law.
I personally believe we need to align immigration law with the realities of the 21st century.
That being said, expect the same arguments for 2A.
What I will say is exactly what Trump said when Hillary tried to claim he doesn’t pay taxes.
If you don’t like the law, then change the law.
I personally believe we need to align immigration law with the realities of the 21st century.
That being said, expect the same arguments for 2A.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:24 pm to Covingtontiger77
You mean SCOTUS is asking hard questions during oral argument? That's pretty much what they're supposed to do...
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:24 pm to ATrillionaire
quote:
Peeking in this thread, I've read so many arguments regarding the intention of the framers regarding the 14th amendment.
Ironically, those same arguments are used by people who want to abolish or reframe the 2nd amendment.
Proof that no one really has convictions.
Intention does too much heavy lifting in your argument here.
There's a difference between objective intent and implied intent.
The argument for an originalist interpretation of the 14th is to examine the text and determine the intention of the people who wrote the amendment. What words were chosen and why.
The argument for implied intention with regards to the 2nd is to ignore the text and say that the framers obviously wrote one thing but meant a totally different thing.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:25 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
The argument for an originalist interpretation of the 14th is to examine the text and determine the intention of the people who wrote the amendment. What words were chosen and why.
The argument for implied intention with regards to the 2nd is to ignore the text and say that the framers obviously wrote one thing but meant a totally different thing.
That's an opinion.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
I know what you did and didn’t ask for. The decision has holes when compared to what the current argument is.
You’re acting as though this exact case has been heard before. Just like there is historical context regarding the 14th Amendment and WKA decision, there is the same here among the carrying out and abuse of the legal immigration system.
Being domiciled is a separate, but relevant, discussion in terms of citizenship, birthright or otherwise.
Are criminals (VISA overstays or even just those who snuck in, and those not actively in the legal process to gain status) bearing allegiance to our nation? Definitely doesn’t seem so, and that was a huge basis in the SCOTUS decision of WKA.
Don’t act pretentious just because someone doesn’t fall for your snapshot gotcha routine, SFP. It’s an intellectual discussion, not a dick measuring contest.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:26 pm to Ag Zwin
That picture is so funny with the whole "Trump Doctrine" angle.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:26 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
There is nothing constitutional about birthright citizenship. This was never the intention.
The 14th Amendment is as much part of the Constitution as any other provision of the document...
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:30 pm to DByrd2
quote:
The decision has holes when compared to what the current argument is.
Not really.
Typically these "holes" are using Congressional action that occurred long after WKA to pretend Congress can supersede the Constitution.
quote:
You’re acting as though this exact case has been heard before. Just like there is historical context regarding the 14th Amendment and WKA decision, there is the same here among the carrying out and abuse of the legal immigration system.
And you prove my point above here, with the bold language.
quote:
Are criminals (VISA overstays or even just those who snuck in, and those not actively in the legal process to gain status) bearing allegiance to our nation? Definitely doesn’t seem so, and that was a huge basis in the SCOTUS decision of WKA.
You're mis-stating WKA. WKA focused on 3 exceptions to the "subject to the jurisdiction" rule very specifically. 1. Diplomats 2. People physically in land occupied by a hostile foreign nation and 3. Indians (based on precedent not statutory interpretation, which has been resolved via Congress so not relevant or applicable).
Not allegiance.
Not work permits.
Congress creating laws establishing illegal status or other concepts cannot overturn the Constittuion.
quote:
Don’t act pretentious just because someone doesn’t fall for your snapshot gotcha routine, S
What "snapshot gotcha" routine? I have spent a LONG time arguing this matter with citations, detailed arguments, historical references, etc.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:30 pm to AGGIES
They’re just running the Paul Ryan “say nice things and stall” plan from 2016-2018.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:30 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
To give citizenship to former slaves and their children. Obviously.
I take it you are not a fan of "strict construction" of the text...
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the 14th Amendment
Is this what the 14th amendment intended?
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:34 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
I want full asset forfeiture of all deported individuals.
Like when the Nazis took all of the assets of the Jewish people in Germany and Austria? That was such a great idea, right?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 12:37 pm to Tigergreg
quote:
The intention was about admitting slaves.
Using this argument the 2nd amendment was intended to make sure we had a “well regulated militia” because there was no standing army. I don’t agree with that interpretation but reading the text that’s what it says.
Without going back in time and talking to the founding fathers we only have the text to go by. The text of the 14th states “ 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”. That seems pretty straightforward to most. If the current administration what’s to change that text and amendment we have ways of doing that. Why are they not pursuing those options?
Page 9 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News