- 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 2:03 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:03 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
How do you reconcile the SCOTUS excluding Indians in the 14th and nobody challenging the Indian Citizenship Act??
There’s a pretty lengthy line of court cases about the pesky issues with taking their land without compensation, which was a lot easier when they’re not considered citizens.
Most of the decisions are now just explained away as “judicial necessity” because of the epically flawed opinions.
1
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:12 pm to beaux duke
quote:
obama, biden and trump all abused the shite out of them.
Didn't even make the top ten.
Executive Orders by President:
Franklin D. Roosevelt Democratic 3,727
Woodrow Wilson Democratic 1,803
Calvin Coolidge Republican 1,203
Theodore Roosevelt Republican 1,081
Herbert Hoover Republican 1,003
Harry S. Truman Democratic 907
William Howard Taft Republican 724
Warren G. Harding Republican 522
Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican 484
Ronald Reagan Republican 381
Bill Clinton Democratic 364
Richard Nixon Republican 346
Lyndon B. Johnson Democratic 325
Jimmy Carter Democratic 320
George W. Bush Republican 291
Barack Obama Democratic 276
Donald Trump – I Republican 220
Ulysses S. Grant Republican 217
John F. Kennedy Democratic 214
William McKinley Republican 185
Gerald Ford Republican 169
George H. W. Bush Republican 166
Joe Biden Democratic 160
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:23 pm to lsuconnman
quote:
There’s a pretty lengthy line of court cases about the pesky issues with taking their land without compensation, which was a lot easier when they’re not considered citizens.
Most of the decisions are now just explained away as “judicial necessity” because of the epically flawed opinions.
This was basically going to be what I was going to say.
You summed it up better, though.
But, there's more to the Ark case than I've seen discussed here, so I apologize if already posted. In the decision, Ark was a citizen since birth based on "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."
A Mexican national that crosses the border to have an anchor baby isn't the same as the Ark family, and should be excluded.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Congress can expand citizenship but it cannot restrict it beyond Constitutional minimums.
Congress has plenary power over naturalization.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:26 pm to Decatur
quote:
I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is
He's full of shite. Probably senile.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:31 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:During the Senate debate on the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, Senator James Doolittle (WI) proposed an amendment to deal with Indians. Specifically, he proposed inserting the words "excluding Indians not taxed" after the word ''thereof'.' :
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??
quote:The sponsor of the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard (MI) immediately torpedoed Senator Doolittle's suggestion:
All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the United States and of the States.
quote:Senator Lyman Trumball (IN) echoed Senator Howard's analysis.
I hope that amendment to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.
quote:In short, the Citizenship Clause treats Indians as sui generis persons. The vast majority of them lived on reservations with their tribe and the reservations were treated as sovereign nations or in the words of Senator Howard "quasi foreign nations."
Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them. If we want to control the Navajoes, or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense·? Is it not understood that if we want to make arrangements with the Indians to whom he refers we do it by means of a treaty? The Senator himself has brought before us a great many treaties this session in order to get control of those people.
This post was edited on 1/23/25 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:31 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
Someone should’ve told him he was ruling on Muslim terrorists getting reduced sentences. He would’ve been excited to uphold it.
Our legal system has been corrupted by decades of attack by critical studies.
Our legal system has been corrupted by decades of attack by critical studies.
This post was edited on 1/23/25 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:32 pm to Salviati
quote:
vast majority of them lived on reservations with their tribe and the tribes/reservations were treated as sovereign nations or in the words of Senator Howard "quasi foreign nations."
What happened first? The Indians getting prosecuted under American courts or getting citizenship?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:33 pm to Harry Boutte
FDR was a fricking communist sympathizer. No wonder he was a tyrant.
He was a shite eater too. His symptoms didn't start until he was 39. Polio is passed through the fecal-oral route. I don't mean to hypothesize, but he more than likely contracted it performing fellatio on the member
of someone who had previously been exposed to polio during anal sex.
He was a shite eater too. His symptoms didn't start until he was 39. Polio is passed through the fecal-oral route. I don't mean to hypothesize, but he more than likely contracted it performing fellatio on the member
of someone who had previously been exposed to polio during anal sex.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:34 pm to Salviati
quote:
The vast majority of them lived on reservations with their tribe and the tribes/reservations were treated as sovereign nations
Yeah. This is still the case. If you commit a crime on a reservation, it isn't the sheriff of the county that's going to arrest you.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:36 pm to RaoulDuke504
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:43 pm to RaoulDuke504
Give the illegals a choice put the kid up for adoption or take it with you when you leave I don’t see as it’s a hard choice to make.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:46 pm to RaoulDuke504
Good luck to those kids who will be left here alone when their parents are deported. At least they'll be raised by functional human beings.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:46 pm to RaoulDuke504
Ignore the judge.
It's time for a citizenship audit of the entire country.
It's time for a citizenship audit of the entire country.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:48 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
FDR was a fricking communist sympathizer. No wonder he was a tyrant.
Okay, what about the 7 Republicans in the top ten for EOs? Tyrants?
Or are presidents only tyrants when they issue EOs that you don't agree with?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:48 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:First, the underlined facts are irrelevant to the Court's analysis. At no point in the Court's analysis do they rely on those facts to arrive at their decision. That ends the discussion.
But, there's more to the Ark case than I've seen discussed here, so I apologize if already posted. In the decision, Ark was a citizen since birth based on "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."
Second, the vast majority of Latino immigrant parents of "anchor babies" "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under" any government. You may have a point concerning "anchor baby" hotel residents; the same cannot be said of the vast majority of "anchor baby" parents. And in any event, again, the underlined facts are not relevant to the Court's analysis.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:49 pm to Harry Boutte
Not all executive orders are equal.
“Today is National Tree Day” is not the same as “Chicks with Dicks Get to Use the Lady’s Room.”
“Today is National Tree Day” is not the same as “Chicks with Dicks Get to Use the Lady’s Room.”
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:49 pm to Decatur
quote:
Said Shumate, “It absolutely is.”
Prior to the 14th Amendment, state courts determined citizenship based on the prevailing laws of the state.
They did use Federal guidelines to process "naturalization.
I.E. States like Louisiana still used the French system to determine if a person was born into slavery. The paternal linkage was in play.
States like Virginia still used the British system which was based on maternal linkage.
As Howard pointed out, the 14th A. was never intended to usurp the government process of determining who was a legitimate offspring of those immigrants who had not yet submitted a request for citizenship.
I would bet on Trump's team as they have already done extensive research on this issue.
This post was edited on 1/23/25 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:51 pm to Salviati
quote:
First, the underlined facts are irrelevant to the Court's analysis.
Yeah. It was a shitty decision. We already know that. You didn’t have to convince us of that.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 2:54 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:Congress has plenary power over a great many things.quote:Congress has plenary power over naturalization.
Congress can expand citizenship but it cannot restrict it beyond Constitutional minimums.
Congress's power does not, however, exceed the limitations set on it by the Constitution.
The Constitution sets forth the persons who are citizens. Congress cannot reduce that definition.
Page 5 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News