- 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 8:43 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:43 pm to boosiebadazz
This SCOTUS is probably not even going to review it.
The problem remains.
We can have birthright citizenship or government services.
We can’t continue paying $65-$70-$80B in public K-12 education costs every year. (And the more we enable the behavior, the bill grows at an exponential rate.). And that’s just public k-12 education.
So this EO advances the discussion. Perhaps it provides political impetus to actually attempt to deal with the issue.
The problem remains.
We can have birthright citizenship or government services.
We can’t continue paying $65-$70-$80B in public K-12 education costs every year. (And the more we enable the behavior, the bill grows at an exponential rate.). And that’s just public k-12 education.
So this EO advances the discussion. Perhaps it provides political impetus to actually attempt to deal with the issue.
3
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:44 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Clearly. But it will take this iteration of SCOTUS to do some significant abrogating to get there.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:44 pm to the808bass
quote:
The problem remains.
We have a solution for the problem (an amendment)
quote:
We can have birthright citizenship or government services.
We can’t continue paying $65-$70-$80B in public K-12 education costs every year. (And the more we enable the behavior, the bill grows at an exponential rate.). And that’s just public k-12 education.
And here is the "living document" argument
Others have said I just invented this out of thin air.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
In no way is my post a “living document post.” I don’t even see how you could get that from it. Let me go read it to a downsy person and see what they think.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:52 pm to the808bass
quote:
We all know lawyers jerk off discussing this stuff. Other people have to actually make the country go.
The thread is about the court case…
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:54 pm to the808bass
quote:
So this EO advances the discussion. Perhaps it provides political impetus to actually attempt to deal with the issue.
Hopefully so. But I’m worried we’re stuck with it because the prospect of an amendment seems insurmountable in the current climate
Posted on 1/23/25 at 8:59 pm to Indefatigable
An amendment doesn’t seem insurmountable. It is insurmountable.
Not one Republican who wants their chamber of commerce donation will advance the issue. We don’t even have to ask the Democrats.
So it will take the long game of remaking the party. Perhaps it will require a thousand more Laken Rileys and Mollie Tibbets and Rachel Morins and Jocelyn Nungarays and the nameless teenage girls who get raped and we never have a name with their face to pretend to protect them in ways we didn’t bother to protect them prior to their rape.
Not one Republican who wants their chamber of commerce donation will advance the issue. We don’t even have to ask the Democrats.
So it will take the long game of remaking the party. Perhaps it will require a thousand more Laken Rileys and Mollie Tibbets and Rachel Morins and Jocelyn Nungarays and the nameless teenage girls who get raped and we never have a name with their face to pretend to protect them in ways we didn’t bother to protect them prior to their rape.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:01 pm to the808bass
quote:
In no way is my post a “living document post.
What does this
quote:
We can have birthright citizenship or government services.
We can’t continue paying $65-$70-$80B in public K-12 education costs every year.
Have to do with the text of the Amendment?
You're imputing modern problems require reversal of prior decisions.
What is the "Living Constitution" analysis?
quote:
The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the U.S. constitution holds a dynamic meaning even if the document is not formally amended. The Constitution is said to develop alongside society's needs and provide a more malleable tool for governments.
So you're arguing that the law should be (1) dynamic (2) without amendment (3) and it should develop as a malleable tool for society's needs.
Yeah, who would think you're making that argument?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:01 pm to the808bass
Congress might be able to further define who qualifies for birthright citizenship and who does not. The 14th Amendment was intended to assure full citizenship for blacks and former slaves and was in no way intended to provide birthright citizenship for anyone who could illegally sneak across the border and drop a baby.
Congress could perhaps clarify the ambiguity of the 14th's text, just like they did on other immigration laws like the 1965 "lottery" crap.
Congress could perhaps clarify the ambiguity of the 14th's text, just like they did on other immigration laws like the 1965 "lottery" crap.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:02 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
Congress might be able to further define who qualifies for birthright citizenship and who does not. The 14th Amendment was intended to assure full citizenship for blacks and former slaves and was in no way intended to provide birthright citizenship for anyone who could illegally sneak across the border and drop a baby.
Congress could perhaps clarify the ambiguity of the 14th's text, just like they did on other immigration laws like the 1965 "lottery" crap.
quote:
The power of naturalization, vested in congress by the constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. 'A naturalized citizen,' said Chief Justice Marshall, 'becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue.' Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of congress, a fortiori no act or omission of congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The fourteenth amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're imputing modern problems require reversal of prior decisions.
No. I’m imputing problems require solutions. You can continue the mental masturbation.
We should have a Congress that tackles the issue. Like we should have a Congress that tackles the issues of Medicare and Social Security. It’s much easier to propose half measures and halve more babies. Which is how the issue happened in the first place.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
Why the frick did you ignore this? 
quote:
So this EO advances the discussion. Perhaps it provides political impetus to actually attempt to deal with the issue.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:06 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Why the frick did you ignore this?
Because his temper tantrum is a copy/paste at this point.
He already answered your question a few posts up
quote:
An amendment doesn’t seem insurmountable. It is insurmountable.
*ETA: I'm also not a Leftist and I don't fail and then pull the "at least it started a conversation" card.
This post was edited on 1/23/25 at 9:07 pm
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:08 pm to Y.A. Tittle
He ignored it because he’s a fig.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
But ignore a slam dunk ban bet.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
ETA: I'm also not a Leftist and I don't fail and then pull the "at least it started a conversation" card.
What?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:08 pm to the808bass
quote:
No. I’m imputing problems require solutions.
There is a solution (an amendment).
quote:
We should have a Congress that tackles the issue
And if Congress doesn't have the power to do so?
Or are you arguing that we should have a system like the UK where the legislature rules all with no checks on its power?
quote:
Like we should have a Congress that tackles the issues of Medicare and Social Security.
They do have the power to do this.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:09 pm to the808bass
quote:
He ignored it because he’s a fig.
I know your temper tantrum script
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:09 pm to Jbird
quote:
But ignore a slam dunk ban bet.
Ban bets are stupid and that has been my stance for 20 years.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 9:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
An amendment doesn’t seem insurmountable. It is insurmountable.
You are the shittiest of the shitty.
quote:
So it will take the long game of remaking the party.
You missed this one, too.
Page 14 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News