- 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 1:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Imagine how the Left will use this once it's the Constitutional analytic framework
I don’t think we have to imagine.
Imagine thinking this hasn’t already happened.
1
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:35 pm to SuperSaint
quote:
Why not just draft legislation and have Mike bring it up for a vote.
EOs are on the same out of control trajectory as the National debt
a different topic altogether, needs its own thread, but agree 100 percent. obama, biden and trump all abused the shite out of them. stop being lazy and draft actual legislation
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:38 pm to RollTide4547
quote:
Squat and drop should not make one a citizen
Then amend the Constitution
quote:
the framers
What do they have to do with this discussion?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:38 pm to Jbird
quote:
You should zoom past 443000 this week
With an average of at least 20 downvotes per post. That’s a lot of red ink.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:41 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
His parents were here legally.
You're changing what I responded to
You said originally
quote:
The key element here is the “jurisdiction” caveat
And I respond correctly. WKA has ruled on that key element, and illegals fit into the analysis already
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:42 pm to RaoulDuke504
quote:
Reagan era judges
These people have to be in their damn 80's or 90's by now.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:42 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. We should be VERY slow to make big changes to conventional wisdom, but it should not be sacrosanct, either.
No.
The constitution is the foundation of this nation, and the Bill of Rights shall stand, as it has stood since the ink dried.
I won't try to change your mind. But I don't suggest that you try to fight me on mine.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
If you could figure out a way to bag all the Bull Excrement you spew, you'd make a billion selling fertilizer before the end of the week.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:44 pm to the808bass
quote:
Imagine thinking this hasn’t already happened.
Scalia, Thomas, Gorsuch, etc have thwarted this with textualists being the driving analytical force.
And before you start with legislative history, Scalia and Thomas directly reject this as part of the analysis
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The frick?
I don't want to frick you.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:46 pm to RollTide4547
quote:
I don't want to frick you.
You just want to lie instead
I said prior to Kamala being picked that if she was picked the DEMa were giving up. I never once said she had a path and said once she was chosen Trump was the heavy favorite to win
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Sure you did. Hind site is 50/50, right Cam?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:48 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Indians
Indians didn't become citizens under the 14th Amendment. The SCOTUS excluded them, but included Chinese born here. Go figure.
Indians weren't made citizens until 1924. Coolidge signed the Indian Citizen Act. Why wasn't the decision of the 14th Amemdment challenged then? How do you reconcile the SCOTUS excluding Indians in the 14th and nobody challenging the Indian Citizenship Act??
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:48 pm to RollTide4547
quote:
Sure you did
I specifically did not
quote:
Hind site is 50/50, right Cam
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:49 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
How do you reconcile the SCOTUS excluding Indians in the 14th and nobody challenging the Indian Citizenship Act??
WKA answers this
Congress can expand citizenship but it cannot restrict it beyond Constitutional minimums.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:50 pm to Wolfwireless
quote:
I won't try to change your mind. But I don't suggest that you try to fight me on mine.
So, you believe that the BOA nullifies any and all restrictions on what can be said or written, weapons that can be owned on used, interpretations of what someone holds as "religion",...?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:51 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
have no faith that the SC will side with Trump on this
I have faith that there are judges that want to.
But it's going to be up to the attorneys s fighting for our side, to give evidence/arguments that they can use, to do so.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:54 pm to RaoulDuke504
The fuller quote:
LINK
quote:
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour, an appointee of Ronald Reagan, said from the bench. “There are other times in world history where we look back and people of goodwill can say where were the judges, where were the lawyers?”
Coughenour, speaking to a packed, standing-room-only courtroom in downtown Seattle, interrupted before Brett Shumate, a Justice Department attorney, could even complete his first sentence.
“In your opinion is this executive order constitutional?” he asked.
Said Shumate, “It absolutely is.”
“Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the Bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order,” Coughenour said. “It just boggles my mind.”
LINK
Posted on 1/23/25 at 1:55 pm to Icansee4miles
Slow Fanni Pro lives for the attention.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:02 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
So, you believe that the BOA nullifies any and all restrictions on what can be said or written, weapons that can be owned on used, interpretations of what someone holds as "religion",...?
Strawman. And gaslighting.
I responded to what you said about the constitution being in need of being modernized to conventional standards.
To which my opinion is that no it does not.
Stay on topic, or go back to the playground.
Page 4 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News