- 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
1
Posted on 1/23/25 at 4:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What do the Founders have to do with this?
The founders of the amendment? Did you think he said founding fathers?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 4:29 pm to BillyBobfan24_7
quote:
The founders of the amendment? Did you think he said founding fathers?
Yes because we don’t call people who draft amendments “the founders”
Posted on 1/23/25 at 4:33 pm to SammyTiger
quote:And then claiming it's a big question now.
this is the equivalent of a liberal president issuing an executive order saying the 2nd amendment really only applies to organized militia.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:24 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
Congress has plenary power over naturalization.
You just confirmed what I said.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:25 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
Harry Boutte
You're really having a hard time in this thread huh?
You went from talking about how Obama, Biden, and Trump aren't in the top 10 of executive orders.
When it was countered that number of EOs isn't the same as substance of EOs, you then countered with an EO from a president who isn't in the top 10 of executive orders (thus countering your own original argument).
When it was pointed out that the order you highlighted was issued at the direction of Congress (a decidedly NOT-tyrannical thing to do) and then rescinded immediately after the bill expires, you then shifted your argument further.
Do you have a consistent point, or is your goal to make yourself look like an idiot who can't stick with a discussion long enough to defend his own arguments?
This post was edited on 1/23/25 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:27 pm to AUCE05
quote:
That's the plan. You need lower level courts to reject so it goes to the SC.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
I love diwnvoting slowflowdouche
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:31 pm to the808bass
quote:
Yeah. It was a shitty decision. We already know that.
Why do you continue to embarrass yourself in these threads?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:31 pm to evil cockroach
quote:I'm not even sure SCOTUS would take up the case. Which justice has the circuit assignment here?
why do you want to want Trump to lose 9-0?
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
Lots going on. You are choosing very carefully I see.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:32 pm to the808bass
quote:
. They did that with the 14th amendment and then a court purposefully pretended to not know what they meant by “subject to the jurisdiction.”
Incorrect.
quote:
You can be fine with destroying the country through illegal immigration while trying to get angels to dance on the head of a pin. Some other people will take action to help keep the country a going concern.
I never took you for a Leftist, but you've chosen an in-group and their side, so the hypocrisy is expected.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:33 pm to the808bass
lol this was decided in the 1800s.
You want judges to ignore the law and when they don’t you cry about corruption.
You want judges to ignore the law and when they don’t you cry about corruption.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:34 pm to loogaroo
quote:
The proper understanding of the Citizenship Clause therefore turns on what the drafters of the amendment, and those who ratified it, meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
quote:
The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy.
-Scalia
Of all the 180s I've seen on this board, turning on Scalia may be the most shocking.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:35 pm to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:
I often wonder if these dudes in 1866 had any inkling that crossing the American border without permission would one day be a crime.
This is the "The Founders drafted the 2A for muskets" argument.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:35 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
I said it needed to be looked at in terms of factors that simply did not exist at the time.
This is LITERALLY the "Living Constitution" analysis.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
My personal opinions or "hope" have no part in that analysis
Shut up
You've never analyzed anything in your life.
The only thing about an analysis you're aware of is the "anal" portion.
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:36 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
What do you think about what Jacob Howard said when he introduced the 14th amendment to congress?
I believe in textualism, like Scalia and Thomas, so this is irrelevant to me
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:37 pm to the808bass
quote:
Not as interpreted by the people who, you know, wrote the 14th Amendment.
quote:
The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy. We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators.
-Scalia
quote:
"we are a government of laws, not of men, and are governed by what Congress enacted rather than by what it intended." And "it would be a strange canon of statutory construction that would require Congress to state in committee reports … that which is obvious on the face of a statute.
-Clarence Thomas
Posted on 1/23/25 at 5:38 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
you take "subject to our jurisdiction" now and how we think of it... you think of, you here so you are under our jurisdiction and have to obey.
Only because of Wong Kim Ark, which was ruled in 1898. This was based off hundreds of years of established English common law.
This isn't some new concept that came about in modernity.
Page 8 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News