- 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: NJ challenging EO to end birth right citizenship
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:56 pm to lsuguy84
Posted on 1/23/25 at 7:56 pm to lsuguy84
While I love common law. Love tradition. Loathe a constitutional convention I love common sense even more. See Ben Franklin.
Flopping over a fence pushing out a baby and declaring it a US citizen is ludicrous Slo. And I want no part in it. I believe our country will prove me right.
Flopping over a fence pushing out a baby and declaring it a US citizen is ludicrous Slo. And I want no part in it. I believe our country will prove me right.
2
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No they specifically dealt with citizenship.
False. Sir Wm Blackstone nor Sir Edward Coke ever mention the word in their vast writings on British Common Law. It’s all subjectship, which has a well defined meaning.
quote:
Our founders have nothing to do with the 14A. The 14A changed our Constitution from what the founders intended. That's what amendments do.
An ape-like description of what Amendments do. They add context and depth to the constitution, they don’t revise, correct, or contradict it. That job is reserved for left wing activists like you.
quote:
Leftists will give up birthright citizenship in 2 seconds in exchange for the Constitution becoming a living document and textualism dying.
No one is making this bargain. This interpretation is textual in the view of many scholars.
Besides, Leftists will always make the living document argument when it suits them. They will always make the textual argument when it suits them. Because their only consistency is hypocrisy.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:10 pm to goatmilker
I wonder if a change in definitional architecture changes the potential outcome
By way of argument, these are not the children of "illegals" a broad term too vague for appropriate analysis but, rather, some form of enemy combatant or invader or some other term.
If you rammed your way in and committed crimes and also had babies (mother or father) that is not the same as staying on an expired visa. Maybe give up on those and focus on children of people committing crimes
By way of argument, these are not the children of "illegals" a broad term too vague for appropriate analysis but, rather, some form of enemy combatant or invader or some other term.
If you rammed your way in and committed crimes and also had babies (mother or father) that is not the same as staying on an expired visa. Maybe give up on those and focus on children of people committing crimes
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:10 pm to lsuguy84
quote:
and likely in regards to the 1st and 2nd?
It's everything.
Other than the living document/rejecting textualism issue, the court will have to reverse the oldest precedent ever reversed, and likely create a whole new analysis for doing so (which is only a few years old in Dobbs). Effectively, opening the door for the next Leftist court to run roughshod everywhere.
They will have the combination of a living Constitution AND no adherence to precedent.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:12 pm to goatmilker
The clown simps for people he doesn’t even want in his neighborhood while trying to act superior to us on here who don’t want them here. He’s wasting his time arguing how this won’t be a thing which means it’s likely to be found legal to end birthright citizenship 
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's exactly what the "living document" people love. Having "conversations" about contemporary societal issues and bemoaning the fact that it's hard to amend the Constitution, so we should have the Supreme Court legislate from the bench instead.
The entire debate isn't simply about contemporary societal issues, it's whether Wong Kim Ark is correct in its interpretation of the 14th Amendment. You're not a victim of dishonest arguments.
I think occasionally the Supreme Court is wrong. That fact doesn't make me a proponent of a living constitution.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Like I've said, this is the craziest political 180 of the MAGA movement. I never thought I'd see them argue for a living Constitution or reject Scalia.
You just saying shite doesn’t make it so. This is a straw man. Conservatives are NOT making a living document case on the 14th. We are interpreting the jurisdiction thereof qualifier to mean exactly what it says. Ju soli AND under the jurisdiction of the United States. A foreign nation is not guaranteed these protections.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:15 pm to JoeHackett
He also though Roe was unlikely to be undone.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:16 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
An ape-like description of what Amendments do.
Not all all. The 14A specifically rejects quite a bit of what the Founders wanted.
quote:
They add context and depth to the constitution, they don’t revise, correct, or contradict it.
This is patently false.
Tell me what effect the 3/5 Clause had after the Reconstruction amendments.
You're saying that they only "added context" when it wholly eliminated the clause from our Constitution.
quote:
No one is making this bargain.
Those presenting dubious arguments to overturn WKA due to society changing are doing just that.
quote:
This interpretation is textual in the view of many scholars.
Show me one of these "textual" analyses that doesn't involve relying on legislative intent.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:16 pm to Vacherie Saint
He’s never right
I actually appreciate him arguing how it’s not gonna work because again it will likely go the opposite way.
I actually appreciate him arguing how it’s not gonna work because again it will likely go the opposite way.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:18 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
The entire debate isn't simply about contemporary societal issues, it's whether Wong Kim Ark is correct in its interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
And the reason for questioning WKA is due to contemporary societal issues and not actual legal arguments, which is why the arguments are so weak on that side of the aisle.
quote:
I think occasionally the Supreme Court is wrong.
Can you cite why it's wrong in this context without relying on legislative intent or Congress creating a class of persons considered "illegal" after WKA?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:18 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
He also though Roe was unlikely to be undone.
LINK?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
EVERYTHING in the constitution is interpreted. Thats called the justice system.
That doesn’t beget the living document argument which implies contemporary “evolution” of the constitution. That isn’t happening here.
You are hurling false intent to support your verbal diarrhea and betting we are too dumb to notice.
We’ve noticed.
That doesn’t beget the living document argument which implies contemporary “evolution” of the constitution. That isn’t happening here.
You are hurling false intent to support your verbal diarrhea and betting we are too dumb to notice.
We’ve noticed.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
This is why people hate you.
Because I point out their bad points specifically.
Spam the board less with your bloviating.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:23 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
He’s never right
Let's revisit the last time MAGA-adjacent charlatans created a stupid legal theory that I eviscerated for months
"Never' right
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:24 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
EVERYTHING in the constitution is interpreted.
The question is how.
I'm defending textualism of Scalia, Thomas, Gorsuch, etc.
You are not.
quote:
That doesn’t beget the living document argument which implies contemporary “evolution” of the constitution. That isn’t happening here.
You need to read the comments. That is exactly what's going on.
Can you cite why it's wrong in this context without relying on legislative intent or Congress creating a class of persons considered "illegal" after WKA?
This post was edited on 1/23/25 at 8:25 pm
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:25 pm to Auburn1968
He’s awful. He’ll never fricking stop either. I usually dip once his arse is good and whipped, and let other posters keep him going all night. It’s usually good for some AM giggles over coffee.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm defending textualism of Scalia, Thomas, Gorsuch, etc.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
Okay we can pull the rest of your posts Nostradamus. 1 post out of 400,000, even blind squirrels find a nut once in awhile.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:30 pm to momentoftruth87
Even if you find a thread just like this one where he plays this same game, he’ll deny it.
It’s his schtick
It’s his schtick
Page 10 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News