- 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: Professor of Law at Chapman & Senior Fellow "Harris not leagally qualified for VP"
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:17 pm to SSpaniel
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:17 pm to SSpaniel
quote:
She was born in Oakland. How are any lines getting blurred?
This is just silly stupid talk that makes people who embrace it look foolish and dumb.
Yep attack her on her stances and actions, attacking her citizenship is a loser
0
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:17 pm to Jjdoc
This is a diversionary tactic created to make the right look stupid.
Keep your eye on the ball. This is garbage. She's 100 percent eligible.
Focus on all the reasons she's terrible for the job.
Keep your eye on the ball. This is garbage. She's 100 percent eligible.
Focus on all the reasons she's terrible for the job.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:18 pm to Brosef Stalin
This is actually a perfect test case for anchor babies / natural born citizens.
SCOTUS shouldn’t be able to punt this one though they will certainly try.
SCOTUS shouldn’t be able to punt this one though they will certainly try.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:20 pm to Jjdoc
Noted Libertarian and First Amendment Guru, Eugene Volokh, responds directly to Eastmen in this Newsweek piece.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:21 pm to teke184
quote:
This is actually a perfect test case for anchor babies / natural born citizens.
No it really isn't. Why do you guys think that the courts are going to do away with birthright citizenship?
Because they unequivocally are going to uphold it, if it ever even makes it to SCOTUS.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:21 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
SCOTUS would rule in favor of birthright citizenship, perhaps without a dissenting vote.
Possibly... regardless, that was not the intent, or the understood language of the time, for the 14th Amendment.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:23 pm to BayBengal9
quote:
that was not the intent, or the understood language of the time, for the 14th Amendmen
And that is relevant how? Birthright citizenship has been read into that language by dozens of state and federal courts in the 150 years since the 14th was passed, and tens of millions of people (if not more) have availed themselves of that citizenship.
Anyone believing that there is even the slimmest of chances that the courts throw that out on the basis of "original intent" is very ignorant on the evolution of constitutional law in this country.
This post was edited on 8/13/20 at 4:28 pm
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:25 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Actually not. If that was the case, Putin could come here with his wife, have a baby here. Raise the kid in Russia and he or she become president.
The rule is domiciled here.
Well, as our jus soli laws exist right now, he might very well be able to do that, at least if he is out of office.
Like it or not (and I don't), being born on US soil is almost 100% US citizen. The only exceptions I know of are those with diplomatic immunity (i.e., not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof").
Maybe foreign leaders visiting here have that immunity baked in. I assume so, but not sure.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:26 pm to BayBengal9
quote:
Technically, that has never been litigated
Wong Kim Ark......... Because the parents had a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, Wong was allowed re-entry by the SCOTUS.
In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a lawful permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:27 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Because they unequivocally are going to uphold it, if it ever even makes it to SCOTUS.
Scotus has ruled.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:27 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
Maybe foreign leaders visiting here have that immunity baked in. I assume so, but not sure.
Heads of state and ministerial-level officials of foreign governments get that immunity while in office I believe, even while travelling.
Not sure how it shakes out once you start working down the ladder.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:29 pm to Jjdoc
And yet, no matter how many times you say it, domicile has nothing to do with birthright citizenship in the United States, or the qualifications to serve as President.
It is not a domicile issue, period. You are wrong and she is eligible. Under current law and practice, someone born on a US ship in the middle of the caspian sea to alien parents is a natural born citizen of the United States. So is Harris.
Making this an issue is stupid, and a distraction. It just allows the left to paint the entire Republican party as a bunch of birther-wackos. Keep to policy and quit reaching for bullshite.
ETA--Even if you reject every answer you've gotten in this thread telling you that you are 100% wrong, don't you think that the army of lawyers who work for the DNC and Biden's campaigns may have taken some notice if their VP pick was not eligible to hold the office?
It is not a domicile issue, period. You are wrong and she is eligible. Under current law and practice, someone born on a US ship in the middle of the caspian sea to alien parents is a natural born citizen of the United States. So is Harris.
Making this an issue is stupid, and a distraction. It just allows the left to paint the entire Republican party as a bunch of birther-wackos. Keep to policy and quit reaching for bullshite.
ETA--Even if you reject every answer you've gotten in this thread telling you that you are 100% wrong, don't you think that the army of lawyers who work for the DNC and Biden's campaigns may have taken some notice if their VP pick was not eligible to hold the office?
This post was edited on 8/13/20 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:35 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
And yet, no matter how many times you say it, domicile has nothing to do with birthright citizenship in the United States,
Yet the SCOTUS used the word.
quote:
or the qualifications to serve as President.
But the 14th.
quote:
It is not a domicile issue, period. You are wrong and she is eligible.
Yet the SCOTUS used the term in their decision.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:36 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Yet the SCOTUS used the word.
Yes, they did. In a case that was actually involved domiciliary issues. This does not. At all, in any way.
Wong Kim is not instructive here, whatsoever, besides the fact that it held that a person born to immigrant parents on US soil is a natural-born citizen.
This post was edited on 8/13/20 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:37 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Birthright citizenship has been read into that language by dozens of state and federal courts in the 150 years since the 14th was passed, and tens of millions of people (if not more) have availed themselves of that citizenship.
Yet the SCOTUS used the term in their ruling.
And the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen.
Never
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:38 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
And the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen.
Which is why there are clear exceptions that have already been pointed out multiple times in this thread.
quote:
et the SCOTUS used the term in their ruling.
Good lord because it was relevant factually to that case. Here, it is not an issue whatsoever. That case was about re-entry, not qualifications to serve.
Besides the central holding in the case is the exact opposite of the argument you are making with respect to Harris.
This post was edited on 8/13/20 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:40 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
In a case that was actually involved domiciliary issues.
No, the case was over him not being allowed here even though he was born here.
The SCOTUS stated what? Tell me what they ruled on him being allowed back in because he qualified as a CITIZEN.
Why did they used the word?
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:44 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
She was born in Oakland, fool.
She's a natural born citizen regardless of where her parents are from, unless they were registered foreign diplomats (which they were not).
Get ready to have your correct statement downvoted like a mother ******.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:46 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:It's an "interpretation"
If she was born in America she is a natural born citizen. Look at all the anchor babies here legally.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 4:46 pm to Jjdoc
The court upheld and established the parameters of jus soli, which does not require domicilliary status for the parents
The opinion literally states that "the right to citizenship is incident to birth in the country."
I swear to god it seems like you get your opinion on this from the dissent.
The opinion literally states that "the right to citizenship is incident to birth in the country."
I swear to god it seems like you get your opinion on this from the dissent.
This post was edited on 8/13/20 at 4:51 pm
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News