- 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 9:44 pm to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:44 pm to Vacherie Saint
You never responded to this from your link:
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.)
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.)
1
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:44 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
and moved the conversation to something more agreeable to you,
Slo 101
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:44 pm to JoeHackett
Whatever it takes to “win”. 
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:45 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.
Just to pat myself on the back here.
It now seems obvious that Scalia would have considered why a group of people met the supposed criteria for citizenship, being born here and subject to our laws, and weren't given citizenship at the time of the ratification of the 14th.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:45 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
British text on English Common Law was used to describe the specific text of the 14th amendment and not the intent behind it? Holy shite!
Yes. The wording used in the 14A has legal meaning and precedent.
No "intent" needed.
Leave intent for those who rely on the reported legislative intent (Which Scalia rejects)
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:46 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification
No legislative intent cited. Which legislator or legislative report was cited in that quote?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
What defines this? And don’t say ju soli because you’d be making another asinine circular argument.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:48 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
What defines this?
quote:
See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
quote:
And don’t say ju soli because you’d be making another asinine circular argument.
Why would I when there is a different, correct answer?
But that statute, which you posted, completely contradicts your argument earlier, right?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why would I when there is a different, correct answer?
What’s that? Wong? How many times do I need to say it?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:50 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
t now seems obvious that Scalia would have considered why a group of people met the supposed criteria for citizenship, being born here and subject to our laws, and weren't given citizenship at the time of the ratification of the 14th.
None of the words you quoted state or imply anything about citizenship
quote:
it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.
See: WKA's analysis of what the terms meant at the time, which were universal and uncontroversial
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
uncontroversial
They are controversial now, blud
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No legislative intent cited. Which legislator or legislative report was cited in that quote?
Pivot
This is what I said pages ago that you dismissed soundly because Scalia would never consider something like this.
I always refer to Congress and the years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. There were people here, Native Americans, who met both of the supposed criteria for citizenship. They were born here and subject to our laws. Yet in the years after, Congress never objected to their exclusion, nor did they ever seek to resolve this fact.
So it would seem clear that according to Congress that those weren't the two criteria that needed to be met.
Now if you consider that to be "legislative intent" and something Scalia would have rejected. I'd refer you to his comments about the same 14th Amendment and whether the Equal Protections Clause prohibited sex based discrimination.
"...nobody ever thought that's what it meant, nobody ever voted for that"
That seems to fall in line with his idea of originalism. "It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted."
If, when the 14th was adopted, it didn't mean citizenship for all who met those two criteria mentioned above, what did it mean?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:52 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
What’s that? Wong? How many times do I need to say it?
You need to go back to your original argument
quote:
Here’s another fun fact: A baby born of a foreign national on a ship in US waters is NOT guaranteed citizenship unless certain “qualifiers” are met. Not constitutional?
You link the law.
I quote the law above.
Now you pivot to saying you don't agree with the law you cited to defend your original position (Which is apparently wrong).
Why did you take the position counter to that statute in the first place?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:52 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
quote:if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States What defines this?quote:
And don’t say ju soli because you’d be making another asinine circular argument
How do recognized hostile nations and other US laws like defrauding the govt and illegal entry play a part in this? Honestly asking thoughts on how factors like this will play into the decision.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
See: WKA's analysis of what the terms meant at the time, which were universal and uncontroversial
Jesus fricking Christ.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:53 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
They are controversial now, blud
Good thing that's irrelevant
quote:
When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision
His quote is specifically not about "now"
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:54 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
If, when the 14th was adopted, it didn't mean citizenship for all who met those two criteria mentioned above, what did it mean?
Read Wong Kim Ark, who answers this exact question (with this analysis)
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
I’m saying there are long standing exceptions to ju soli that have been upheld by lower courts.
You keep leaning on Wong, which we all consider a bad interpretation of the amendments intent.
My argument all along… there’s a strong constitutional case here.
You keep leaning on Wong, which we all consider a bad interpretation of the amendments intent.
My argument all along… there’s a strong constitutional case here.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Read Wong Kim Ark
Stahp
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Good thing that's irrelevant
Really? lol. Tell that to the courts that consider this EO.
Page 15 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News