- 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 12:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the appellate court rules this EO is unconstitutional, I can see a path where the USSC does not even accept the writ.
i think the court will want to make a modern day decision either backing up the previous decisions or over ruling it..... think they will confirm, and state that congress and the states need to change it if that is what they want to do....
however, i see a small chance to say the language at the time was specific to protect freed slaves and their children
0
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:52 pm to Jbird
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:52 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Can you see a path where the USSC does accept the writ?
Sure
I think it will be 7-2, possibly 9-0 it Thomas and Alito don't act politically
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the appellate court rules this EO is unconstitutional, I can see a path where the USSC does not even accept the writ.
I agree. Very doubtful SCOTUS bothers with this. This was a shot in the dark and probably more of a preliminary salvo to whip up support for an eventual bill.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
So you contend that it is a constitutional right of an illegal alien to have a child here who then becomes a naturalized citizen?
Illegal aliens have no constitutional rights in a foreign country.
One minute you want to protect the right to murder babies and the next you want to protect their right to be citizens? It’s all very confusing how you contradict yourselves.
Illegal aliens have no constitutional rights in a foreign country.
One minute you want to protect the right to murder babies and the next you want to protect their right to be citizens? It’s all very confusing how you contradict yourselves.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No
It's my legal analysis
My personal opinions or "hope" have no part in that analysis
Simmer down now divorce lawyer
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:54 pm to Penrod
quote:
preliminary salvo to whip up support for an eventual bill.
A bill for congress to define "jurisdiction thereof".
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What do the Founders have to do with this?
None of them wanted birthright citizenship.
None of the framers of the 14th Amemdment wanted it either.
The justice that wrote the decision for Wong Ark also wrote the decision that excluded Indians. So he didn't want all people included either.
Seeing a pattern yet?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:56 pm to RaoulDuke504
Meanwhile, expose the politicians who support birthright citizenship!!
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:56 pm to RaoulDuke504
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:56 pm to ezride25
quote:
So you contend that it is a constitutional right of an illegal alien to have a child here who then becomes a naturalized citizen?
I think that the child of a illegal immigrant is a US citizen per our case law and the textual analysis of the 14A
quote:
Illegal aliens have no constitutional rights in a foreign country
This is not related to the discussion, but you're 100% wrong
quote:
One minute you want to protect the right to murder babies
The frick?
quote:
It’s all very confusing how you contradict yourselves.
You're making straw men
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:57 pm to GumboPot
quote:
A bill for congress to define "jurisdiction thereof".
Yeah, that’s what another poster suggested recently. I think he’s right that it would then have a serious chance of reaching a hearing in front of the whole SCOTUS…where it would probably be defeated 6-3 or 7-2. I still think that is a Hail Mary.
Eventually we will have to do the heavy lifting of amending the Constitution.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 12:59 pm to RaoulDuke504
This is clearly a big issue.
Let's say there are 30 million illegal immigrants in the country and in the next 10 years, there are 30 million babies born from those illegal immigrants.
Should those 30 million babies be American citizens?
Add another 20 years and that 30 million may double or triple.. rinse and repeat and pretty soon, they are a huge percentage of the American population.. and this is why Biden and his regime allowed it to happen.
I understand the other side of the argument too.. the whole thing is just a complete shitshow and the Left not only allowed to happen.. but actually encouraged it..
Let's say there are 30 million illegal immigrants in the country and in the next 10 years, there are 30 million babies born from those illegal immigrants.
Should those 30 million babies be American citizens?
Add another 20 years and that 30 million may double or triple.. rinse and repeat and pretty soon, they are a huge percentage of the American population.. and this is why Biden and his regime allowed it to happen.
I understand the other side of the argument too.. the whole thing is just a complete shitshow and the Left not only allowed to happen.. but actually encouraged it..
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:00 pm to Crimson
quote:
Time to mount an amendment effort.
In my opinion, this is the most clean cut way to do it. Remove the citizenship clause from the 14th amendment and place that topic strictly in the realm of Congress and the executive. If the effort was successful, it could never seriously be challenged again.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:01 pm to GumboPot
quote:
A bill for congress to define "jurisdiction thereof".
That's already been done
The statute has an enforcement mechanism that doesn't have the power to overrule the text of the Amendment
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:02 pm to RaoulDuke504
That was always coming, no surprise.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:03 pm to RaoulDuke504
The question presented is clear.
The 14th Amendment was addressing the former slaves and Indians contemporary at the time to establish a status for them. It wasn't intended for some woman to land on a beach, squirt out a kid and call it a citizen.
It's very clear.
The 14th Amendment was addressing the former slaves and Indians contemporary at the time to establish a status for them. It wasn't intended for some woman to land on a beach, squirt out a kid and call it a citizen.
It's very clear.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But it's not
There is no way that the drafters of the 14A contemplated the idea of a foreigner popping into the country one day before giving birth and that baby being granted citizenship status. It took days to reach the next state at the time.
As much as 2A zealots want to say the Founders DID contemplate an “assault rifle” (whatever the hell that means), and that means all guns should be legal, we have almost all accepted that “bear arms” does not in fact mean that we can hold and use nuclear weapons.
Similar arguments with libel, slander, and other 1A arguments.
My point: Every aspect of the Constitution needs some element of review to judge its relevance and application in a fundamentally different world than when it was drafted. We should be VERY slow to make big changes to conventional wisdom, but it should not be sacrosanct, either.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:13 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
My point: Every aspect of the Constitution needs some element of review to judge its relevance and application in a fundamentally different world than when it was drafted
Living document analysis
Imagine how the Left will use this once it's the Constitutional analytic framework
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:15 pm to RaoulDuke504
Does NOT surprise me. He's a Washington judge. Former Governor Inslee has most of the high court judges in his back pocket in that state. And of course he's gonna stand with the Dems.
I don't know the district supreme court judge Elena Kagan. Or how she would react to this. She may punt it back to the appealate court when it's appealed from there.
Our best hope of getting this to SCOTUS on this one is to get contradicting rulings from different districts.
I don't know the district supreme court judge Elena Kagan. Or how she would react to this. She may punt it back to the appealate court when it's appealed from there.
Our best hope of getting this to SCOTUS on this one is to get contradicting rulings from different districts.
Page 2 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News