- 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 1/24/25 at 11:23 am to Dandy Chiggins
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:23 am to Dandy Chiggins
quote:The Court never mentions: (1) whether Wong Kim Ark's parents were or were not legal residents, or (2) whether they had entered the country legally:
WKA parents were Chinese laborers who were legal residents who had entered the country legally; but not citizens.
quote:I assume they were here legally because the first Chinese Exclusion Act was enacted in 1882. Nevertheless, the question remains. Can Congress limit or reduce a Constitutional right by statute? For example, can Congress exclude AR-15s from the protection of the 2nd Amendment by statute? Can Congress limit or exclude certain statements from the protection of the 1st Amendment by statute? In other words, can Congress make a subset of the protected things, no longer protected? The answer to both questions is governed by fundamental Constitutional law, and it is a resounding "No."
His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.
Similarly, Congress cannot limit or reduce the protections of the Citizenship Clause from persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Specifically, Congress cannot remove the protections of the Citizenship Clause from persons born in the United States by immigration statutes. In other words, Congress cannot remove the birthright citizenship protection from the children of immigrants merely by making it illegal for those immigrants to enter the country.
Certainly, Congress can make it illegal to enter the country. Certainly, those people who enter are not citizens. However, those peoples' children born in the United States are citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment, and Congress cannot limit that right by statute.
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 11:24 am
2
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:25 am to Harry Boutte
quote:
Why does that matter?
Because even if we agree that is an example of tyranny, it would be an example of tyrannical legislature, not a tyrannical executive.
The president doing what he's told by the people's elected representatives can't be tyranny on the part of the executive.
quote:
Personally, I don't really have a problem with Trump's EOs, as I trust the courts to sort out what is Constitutional or not.
Obviously not, because the EO and related law you highlighted was challenged in the courts.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:25 am to Dandy Chiggins
quote:Wong Kim Ark's parents were "subjects of the Emperor of China." 169 U.S. 652.
In WKA the Court reasoned that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" meant being within the complete allegiance and obedience of the United States, which included those present legally in
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:28 am to RaoulDuke504
quote:
Reagan era judge
Reagan era? The guy is alomost 90. No way he wrote this. Some proggie, Ivy leaguer wormed their way into his staff, and sat that piece of paper down in front of him to sign
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Which of those 2 classes do illegal aliens fall under?
Arguably this one
quote:
2. Children born in areas of hostile occupation (which was about Indians and the potential for another War of 1812, but is not relevant today as there hasn't been an occupation on US soil since the War of 1812).
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:31 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Because even if we agree that is an example of tyranny, it would be an example of tyrannical legislature, not a tyrannical executive.
Wrong. Nixon issued the EO, not Congress. Nixon did NOT have to issue the EO, but he did. He should have vetoed the bill, but he didn't. That the Congress enabled the executive to assume tyrannical authority is irrelevant.
quote:
The president doing what he's told by the people's elected representatives can't be tyranny on the part of the executive.
Oh, sweet summer child...
quote:
the courts.
Not this court.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:32 am to jchamil
quote:
Arguably this one
Not in any way.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:43 am to Salviati
quote:
The Court never mentions: (1) whether Wong Kim Ark's parents were or were not legal residents, or (2) whether they had entered the country legally:
The court doesn’t address that question because it was undisputed that WKA’s parents were there legally.
quote:
The convention between the United States and China of 1894 provided that 'Chinese laborers or Chinese of any other class, either permanently or temporarily residing in the United States, shall have for the protection of their persons and property all rights that are given by the laws of the United States to citizens of the most favored nation, excepting the right to become naturalized citizens.
The court does, however, expressly state that their view of “subject to the jurisdiction” only applies “so long as the US permits them (the parents) to reside here.”
quote:
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 11:44 am
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Not in any way.
It's a joke about certain areas being territory taken over by hostiles (illegals).
Bet you can find plenty of places in FL, TX, AZ, CA where the locals wouldn't think it's really a joke.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:46 am to Gideon Swashbuckler
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:51 am to Salviati
quote:
Certainly, Congress can make it illegal to enter the country. Certainly, those people who enter are not citizens. However, those peoples' children born in the United States are citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment, and Congress cannot limit that right by statute.
Unless of course if the 14th amendment only applies when their parents are “subject to the jurisdiction of the US.” And, who gets to decide who is subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Congress.
Thus, the 14th amendment presupposes that congress will have a say in the matter.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:53 am to LSUFAITHFUL2
quote:
Thus, the 14th amendment presupposes that congress will have a say in the matter.
Congress doesn't get to usurp the Constitution just because
Posted on 1/24/25 at 11:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Congress doesn't get to usurp the Constitution just because
If it’s for the best, and it is in this case, I hope this changes.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 12:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Congress doesn't get to usurp the Constitution just because
Congress is passing laws regarding who is in the US legally, which is not usurping the constitution.
The 14th amendment contemplates that the birthright only applies to those “subject to the US jurisdiction.” Since Congress has exclusive purview over that, the 14th amendment builds in the fact that this can change over time (by Congress).
Your precious WKA case acknowledges that only those here legally “are subject to the jurisdiction” and that that can change. The court literally says “so long as the US permits them to reside here.”
quote:
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.
This post was edited on 1/24/25 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 1/24/25 at 12:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
OK. I'm not trying to play gotcha with you homie.
I'm merely saying that limited power isn't plenary by definition.
If it's limited, then it isn't be fricking plenary. Period. You can't have limited absolute power.
So, if Congress has plenary power, then it isn't limited. If it's limited, then it isn't plenary.
That's all I'm saying.
And yes, if Congress has plenary power over Naturalization, like POTUS has plenary power over pardons, then Congress decides what "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S." means, not the SCOTUS. In tje same way that the POTUS decides whom to pardon.
They're co-branches of govt. You're saying the plenary power the POTUS has isn't limited (in the case of pardons) but the plenary power that Congress has over Naturalization is limited.
I'm merely saying that limited power isn't plenary by definition.
If it's limited, then it isn't be fricking plenary. Period. You can't have limited absolute power.
So, if Congress has plenary power, then it isn't limited. If it's limited, then it isn't plenary.
That's all I'm saying.
And yes, if Congress has plenary power over Naturalization, like POTUS has plenary power over pardons, then Congress decides what "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S." means, not the SCOTUS. In tje same way that the POTUS decides whom to pardon.
They're co-branches of govt. You're saying the plenary power the POTUS has isn't limited (in the case of pardons) but the plenary power that Congress has over Naturalization is limited.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 12:37 pm to VoxDawg
Posted on 1/24/25 at 12:52 pm to djsdawg
quote:
If it’s for the best, and it is in this case, I hope this changes.
Living Constitution-itis
Posted on 1/24/25 at 12:54 pm to LSUFAITHFUL2
quote:
The 14th amendment contemplates that the birthright only applies to those “subject to the US jurisdiction.” Since Congress has exclusive purview over that,
Only above the Constitutional minimums, which Wong Kim Ark articulates.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 12:58 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
The people writing the 14th amendment were more aware of immigrants than the people writing the 2nd amendment were aware of automatic rifles and school shootings.
This is completely incorrect. Not only were automatic weapons a thing, but one of the most violent school shootings in our nation's history happened before the ratification of the second amendment. It was obviously known to them that school shootings could and had happened.
That's not the worst problem with the "2A is for muskets" argument though. There were also far worse weapons than automatic weapons at the time of the ratification, and they intended for people to have access to all of those weapons.
Posted on 1/24/25 at 1:06 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
This is completely incorrect. Not only were automatic weapons a thing, but one of the most violent school shootings in our nation's history happened before the ratification of the second amendment. It was obviously known to them that school shootings could and had happened.
1. I cannot variety your point about automatic weapons in 1791.
2. Idk if a native american raid on a school is really the same thing as a kid showing up and wasting 15 of his classmates.
Page 16 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News