- 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: Live: Supreme Court hears Trump bid to limit birthright citizenship
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:45 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:45 am to NC_Tigah
quote:That's an argument for adding a residency requirement, not ending birthright citizneship.
As posted earlier, only lunacy would hold that intent of the 14thA was to allow the CCP to jet pregnant CCP-loyal women into the US, drop a baby, return to China, raise the child as a US-hating CCP-loyalist, and have him eligible to be elected POTUS, whereas Elon Musk is ineligible.
0
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:45 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It goes straight to the intent of the right.
The intent of the 2nd is to have militias to fight alongside the Continental Army.
See how that works?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:45 am to lionward2014
quote:
The Constitution isn't a living document, even if that was argued by the SG today.
The Constitution is not a living document, however congressional act,laws, and judicial decision are, and these do not always follow the constitution. There are many new laws that are contrary to the constitution because they were made legal under a very linear scope and do not take into account all other impacts against the constitution.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:47 am to lionward2014
Alito is asking some very hard questions right now. He really has pressed both sides.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:51 am to loogaroo
SCOTUSblog: Oral argument live blog for Wednesday, April 1
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/oral-argument-live-blog-for-wednesday-april-1/
CSPAN live video at link.
quote:
On Wednesday, April 1, we will be live blogging as the court hears argument in Trump v. Barbara, on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
Note: A login is not required to participate in the chat.
Also, to those of you who are in the legal profession, we would be very grateful if you could fill out this brief survey about your work.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/oral-argument-live-blog-for-wednesday-april-1/
CSPAN live video at link.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:53 am to lionward2014
I'm not a lawyer; which case are they pulling the domicile argument from? It seems like a good bit of the admin's argument (and therefore the ACLU's defense) hinge on defining that word. The ACLU is trying to downplay it while the government considers it critical
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:54 am to cajunangelle
They literally can't even because OMB. To this day.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:55 am to Ingeniero
Domicile is referenced in WKA
This would logically have much more impact on birth tourism (if they come here just to birth a baby it's almost impossible for them to be domiciled here) than illegal immigrants (who are almost always domiciled here)
This would logically have much more impact on birth tourism (if they come here just to birth a baby it's almost impossible for them to be domiciled here) than illegal immigrants (who are almost always domiciled here)
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:That is exactly why we are even having this discussion. Again, the founders had a specific reason for POTUS requirements. Modern immigration theory vis-a-vis a "living document" premise, completely ignores the founder's intent.
The other option is to make the Constitution a "living document"
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:00 am to NC_Tigah
I think Hintopoulos is a strong case for the lefties because mom was technically illegal at the time of the child's birth. But even then, she entered the country legally as a seaman(and very pregnant), and was held ashore by US doctors beyond her 30 day visa period for medical reasons. Even then, immediately after the child was born, she voluntarily disclosed her status and sought a stay of deportation. I don't think the court ruled on the legal status of the kid in this case, but in the text, most justices spoke as if the child was obviously presumed a citizen - which was the lynchpin for the deportation ruling.
I still think you can make an argument around that one.
I still think you can make an argument around that one.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:03 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Domicile is referenced in WKA
This would logically have much more impact on birth tourism (if they come here just to birth a baby it's almost impossible for them to be domiciled here) than illegal immigrants (who are almost always domiciled here)
Yes. The admin argued that someone here illegally cannot create "domicile." Alito used that to talk about how it would be hard to conceptualize someone who is always subject to the process of removal having established permanent domicile in the US. He deviated to something else that gave credence to the argument against the admin, but blanking on what it was. Might have been questioning about birth tourism.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 11:05 am
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:03 am to lionward2014
quote:No.
The intent of the 2nd is to have militias to fight alongside the Continental Army.
The intent of the 2nd is to have a society of individuals with firearms and competency available to join militias as necessary.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:04 am to SlowFlowPro
Ark's parents were not domiciled here in violation of US law, so I think Hintopoulos is likely better if you want pure birthright to be the interpretation.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:How can someone who is immediately removable be considered "domiciled"?
illegal immigrants (who are almost always domiciled here)
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:09 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Ark's parents were not domiciled here in violation of US law,
Wasn't the issue though that they couldn't naturalize, which would inherently mean they couldn't be domiciled because at some point they would have to leave. Under the argument that domicile, with it's permanent nature, is what is required to be "subject to the jurisdiction" then they wouldn't have fit into it either.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:15 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
How can someone who is immediately removable be considered "domiciled"?
Intent to remain.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:18 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Ark's parents were not domiciled here in violation of US law
Distinction without a (legal) difference.
The violation of us law is an act of Congress. Congress cannot override the Constitution
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:21 am to lionward2014
There was an exclusion act in force at the time that would have prevented the parents from naturalizing, but not living and working here. But they were still loyal Chinese subjects and I dont believe it was their intent to ever naturalize anyway. They were living and working in the US for 20 years when WKA was born, but eventually returned to China. Their presence in the US was legal.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:21 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:Intent to remain invisible to US jurisprudence.
Intent to remain.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 11:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The violation of us law is an act of Congress. Congress cannot override the Constitution
That's where the ACLU lawyer did a good job asking Kavanaugh and ACB's question that the 14th set the floor of who is a US citizen at birth but they can still pass legislation over who else can receive it. So even if Congress unanimously passed legislation saying that children of illegals aren't citizens, it wouldn't be constitutional because of the 14th.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News