- 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 9:13 pm to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:13 pm to Vacherie Saint
From your 2nd link
Is that not what you were referring to?
quote:
8 FAM 301.1-4 birth in u.s. internal WATERS and TERRITORIAL Sea
(CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021)
a. Persons born on ships located within U.S. internal waters (except as provided in 8 FAM 301.1-3) are considered to have been born in the United States. Such persons will acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Internal waters include the ports, harbors, bays, and other enclosed areas of the sea along the U.S. coast. As noted above, a child born on a foreign merchant ship or privately owned vessel in U.S. internal waters is considered as having been born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.)
Is that not what you were referring to?
0
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:14 pm to the808bass
quote:
Correct. It’s just real-world intent. This is what matters to actual people.
But not Scalia, which was his argument (if you could read)
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:14 pm to the808bass
quote:
He’ll take one sentence from your post, wrest it from context,
And you start off with a lie
quote:
form a fantasy position that makes a straw man look like 16 ga steel and think he’s crafted a zinger.
And only get worse
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
He’s dead.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:14 pm to the808bass
quote:
He’s dead.
And yet, still the subject of the exchange.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And you start off with a lie
You did it twice in the last two pages.
Perhaps you’re a psychopath and don’t realize that you’re doing it.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
Watch this frens…
quote:
Literally no court since WKA agrees with you. It's been almost 130 years for this argument to have been made.
quote:
How many challenges in 130 years?
quote:
I couldn't tell you
quote:
Why not? You made the point
quote:
No I didn't.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
I forgot for a second that you channel Scalia. Thanks for reminding us.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:17 pm to Vacherie Saint
You're conflating 2 concepts, which isn't shocking.
No appellate decision agreeing with your stance is a different comment than knowing the number of cases across the country that started off in a district court.
No appellate decision agreeing with your stance is a different comment than knowing the number of cases across the country that started off in a district court.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:18 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
I forgot for a second that you channel Scalia. Thanks for reminding us.
Apparently I'm the only one who actually remembers what his textualist philosophy was.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Apparently I'm the only one who actually remembers what his textualist philosophy was.
You do this constantly too. Ignore the fact that he was an avowed Originalist. Ignore that he was dedicated to "what it meant at the time it was adopted."
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
There you go again tying your argument to anti-textualism when literally none of us here are making that case.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:22 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
Ignore that he was dedicated to "what it meant at the time it was adopted."
I don't do this.
You just keep trying to shoehorn in legislative intent (and then defend this point by using examples of Scalia specifically NOT using legislative intent).
quote:
Ignore the fact that he was an avowed Originalist.
Originalism is a subset of textualism, but the distinction isn't important (unless you want to keep arguing incorrectly that Scalia's originalism involved legislative intent).
Originalism just limits the time period of the meaning of the text being analyzed.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:23 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
There you go again tying your argument to anti-textualism when literally none of us here are making that case.
Wong Kim Ark is a textualist analysis of the 14th Amendment.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Originalism is a subset of textualism
Not really.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:24 pm to the808bass
quote:
He’ll take one sentence from your post, wrest it from context, form a fantasy position that makes a straw man look like 16 ga steel and think he’s crafted a zinger.
That's what he the other day.
Me: Exactly, so if immunity is granted by Congress
SFP: "Limited immunity for a specific group not discussed in WKA is granted by Congress"
Me: So is full immunity.
SFP: "The concept predates the US as a country, so no, it's not a creation a Congress ultimately."
LINK
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
How much do you donate so you can shite all over this board daily?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:24 pm to Vacherie Saint
Can you define it please. Or is this like lawfare?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Wong Kim Ark is a textualist analysis of the 14th Amendment.
No it isn’t. It relies on English Common Law to attempt to derive original intent.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:27 pm to Jbird
Original intent leverages the contemporary writings and known sentiments of the authors.
Textualism looks no further than words on the paper.
Textualism looks no further than words on the paper.
Page 13 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News