- 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: Reagan era judges shoots down Trump 14th amendment EO
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:27 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:27 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
If Congress has plenary power over naturalization then they can decide who is and who isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
what?
0
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:28 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
If Congress has plenary power over naturalization then they can decide who is and who isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
You’re conflating concepts. They do have authority over the naturalization process. They do not have the authority to change the text or meaning of the 14th amendment.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:28 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
“Should” isn’t the question.
It absolutely is the question.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:28 pm to the808bass
quote:
It absolutely is the question.
Policy wise sure.
Not when discussing the legal case. It’s a political question that the courts won’t touch
This post was edited on 1/23/25 at 8:30 pm
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:28 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
A socialist bill passed by passed by a Democrat-controlled House and Democrat-controlled Senate? Color me shocked.
Wouldn't a conservative Republican president have just vetoed that shite?
Ok, I wasn't following that discussion, and if I'm out of context, I apologize. Just let me know.
But in the quoted example, if said Congress passed said measure by a 2/3rds majority, the Congress could override said President's veto.
This is part of where "lame duck" comes from.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:29 pm to Jbird
quote:
Guy lives for this site
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:30 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
There is, at best, a mildly tenable legal argument against automatic birthright citizenship based on a narrow interpretation of "jurisdiction.”
However the prevailing legal interpretation and practice since the 1890s support the understanding that the Constitution does guarantee birthright citizenship.
Any change would likely require either a *significant* reinterpretation by the courts or a constitutional amendment.
However the prevailing legal interpretation and practice since the 1890s support the understanding that the Constitution does guarantee birthright citizenship.
Any change would likely require either a *significant* reinterpretation by the courts or a constitutional amendment.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:31 pm to Indefatigable
Yes. We all know lawyers jerk off discussing this stuff. Other people have to actually make the country go.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:32 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
But I was asking if Congress had plenary power. Not the difference between natiralization and birthright citizenship.
They have the power outside of Constitutional limitations, like all Congressional powers.
You can try to force this conflation using "plenary" as some gotcha and continue to ignore reality all you want. It's been explained to you a dozen times at this point.
You not understanding is a you issue. This isn't even complicated.
quote:
If Congress has plenary power over naturalization then they can decide who is and who isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
No, as that is specifically a Constitutional issue and their power has been clearly demarked.
You're just trying to argue that demarcation never occurred, by making silly arguments ignoring how the Constitution and Congressional power interact.
quote:
I was simply pointing out that Slo's legal analysis was that Congress has absolute power that is limited.
They have the power past the Constitutional limits.
Congress cannot override the Constitution. This is basic civics.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:32 pm to the808bass
This isn’t “going” anywhere without lawyers weighing in…
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:32 pm to the808bass
quote:
It absolutely is the question.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:33 pm to the808bass
quote:
Yes. We all know lawyers jerk off discussing this stuff. Other people have to actually make the country go.
Your multi year melt and temper tantrum is noted, again.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
And you have another day under your belt of contributing absolutely zero to society. Wouldn’t trade with you. Thanks.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:37 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
you can argue an amendment is dated but you can’t just change it via EO.
The purpose of the EO is to provide the spark that lights the fire.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:37 pm to the808bass
But why drop in with the ankle-biting? That’s STDTiger territory. You don’t ever want to be like that guy.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:38 pm to boosiebadazz
I have posted in multiple pages of this thread. I’m not “dropping in.”
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:39 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
The purpose of the EO is to provide the spark that lights the fire.
Clearly. But it will take this iteration of SCOTUS to do some significant abrogating to get there.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:40 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I'm not even sure SCOTUS would take up the case. Which justice has the circuit assignment here?
Washington is in the 9th Circuit, which is Associate Justice Elena Kagan.
Yeah... I had to look it up, lol.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitAssignments.aspx
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:41 pm to the808bass
quote:
And you have another day under your belt of contributing absolutely zero to society.
I'm sorry for you.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
Come on man u can hit 443k this weekend!
Page 13 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News