- 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: Revisiting Birthright Citizenship Oral Arguments - Jus Soli - Exceptions
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:10 am to cssamerican
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:10 am to cssamerican
quote:
I guess the question is did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” have a clear legal meaning at that time?
If you read WKA, the answer is yes.
The decision goes into a very detailed historical-textual analysis of the phrase.
You can seem some of these excerpts on page 1
quote:
In essence that is what the whole debate/case comes down to, correct?
Correct
2
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Several American Indian tribes and indigenous groups historically inhabited or ranged across Northern Mexico. The Apaches and Comanches were but some of them. So a Mexican Apache is a different population than an American Indian in your assessment.
Yet by your interpretation of Ark, in those identical circumstances, one is a US citizen and one is not.
Different case. Different populations. Different impact.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:12 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
or conversely, those "hundreds" took the author of the clause at his word, and passed the amendment based on that understanding.
That is an illogical and irrational assumption, especially since we have clear evidence there were multiple interpretations/intents of those involved.
quote:
To relegate the author's stated intent to nothing more than one opinion of hundreds is ridiculous.
Pretending the author's intent and interpretation had any more validity than the interpretation of any other voters is even more ridiculous.
Again, this is the problem with legislative intent.
Some Scalia quotes:
quote:
"We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators".
quote:
"The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy".
quote:
"The stark reality is that the only thing that one can say for sure was agreed to by both houses and the President (on signing the bill) is the text of the statute. The rest is legal fiction".
quote:
"The goal of statutory interpretation is to implement the meaning of statutory text, not the intent behind the text".
quote:
"The genuine intent of the legislators—apart from the text—is not only impossible to determine but is also illegitimate as a basis for a court’s decision".
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:WKA was judicial activism. The question is what answer is found in the 14th amendment itself. WKA claimed, incorrectly, that the 14th amendment said what it did not say as defined by its own author.
If you read WKA, the answer is yes.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:It is "illogical and irrational" to assume that those voting for the amendment actually believed what the 14th amendment intent was based on the author's own statements, published in the congressional record? I think you don't know what the words "illogical and irrational" actually mean.
That is an illogical and irrational assumption
Again, based on such a twisted pretext, those "hundreds" of individuals involved were willing to cede control of US elections to a foreign power. If you want to talk about "illogical and irrational," that pretext defines it.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:23 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
WKA was judicial activism
The admin is not trying to overturn WKA
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:25 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It is "illogical and irrational" to assume that those voting for the amendment actually believed what the 14th amendment intent was based on the author's own statements, published in the congressional record?
Yes, it's a logical and rational to assume this was a universal opinion. It becomes even weaker when you realize we have evidence that this is not true.
quote:
Again, based on such a twisted pretext, those "hundreds" of individuals involved were willing to cede control of US elections to a foreign power.
You can be as dramatic as you want and still doesn't make you right.
quote:
. If you want to talk about "illogical and irrational," that pretext defines it.
If the results of this amendment lead to these absurd results as you put it, we have the amendment process to fix it, just as the slave amendments corrected prior constitutional screw-ups like the 3/5 clause
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the results of this amendment lead to these absurd results as you put it, we have the amendment process to fix it, just as the slave amendments corrected prior constitutional screw-ups like the 3/5 clause
If those results happen, there won't be country or constitution left to save
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:A distinction without a difference. The administration is rightfully attempting to overturn flawed elements of WKA, or the flawed interpretation of them. They've essentially given the Supreme Court, the choice to do one or the other, similar to the approach in Dobbs.
The admin is not trying to overturn WKA
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:31 am to TrueTiger
quote:
If those results happen, there won't be country or constitution left to save
Unproductive, emotional arguments have no real merit
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:31 am to NC_Tigah
It was a way to mirror the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Congress deliberately chose the phrasing “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to be cleaner, more durable constitutional provision that avoided the interpretive headaches of “Indians not taxed” and “foreign power” while achieving the same core goal: securing birthright citizenship for freed slaves and most others born in the U.S., subject to full U.S. sovereign authority.
I think it was pretty clear they had no intention of allowing birth tourism. The illegal alien argument is more difficult because you didn’t have immigration laws that would define what an illegal alien was until years after.
I think it was pretty clear they had no intention of allowing birth tourism. The illegal alien argument is more difficult because you didn’t have immigration laws that would define what an illegal alien was until years after.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:32 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The administration is rightfully attempting to overturn flawed elements of WKA
Not really.
They want the court to basically redefine what domicile means. But they want to leave WKA fully intact with no revisions
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the results of this amendment lead to these absurd results as you put it, we have the amendment process to fix it, just as the slave amendments corrected prior constitutional screw-ups like the 3/5 clause
quote:
Due to Ark-related stupidity, we now have a situation where a foreign nation can literally swing a national US election. E.g., less than 100K well-placed votes can swing most POTUS elections. China potentially has many times that number of loyal Chinese nationals ready to establish voting eligibility in US swing states. Eventually the number of such Chinese loyals could drift into the millions.
As I pointed out earlier, there is no requirement for such voters to be rooted to one location for subsequent elections. Meaning, that as folks here yammer "meh just do an Amendment," even if the proposed birthright clarification Amendment passed both Houses of Congress by 2/3rds majorities, as states individually took the measure up over time, the international Chinese bloc of ""US Citizens"" could shift their claimed state/county residencies to swing the vote in select legislatures.
It is an absurdity which clearly could neither have been the intent of 14th Amendment authors or remotely considered in the awful Fuller SCOTUS finding.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They want the court to basically redefine what domicile means.
"Domicile" has a helluva lot more wiggle room than "marriage" and they had no trouble redefining that.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:35 am to SlowFlowPro
The contemplation of not existing tends to evoke emotions.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:40 am to Flats
quote:
"Domicile" has a helluva lot more wiggle room than "marriage" and they had no trouble redefining that.
They did not redefine marriage.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Just as the government did acknowledge in Dobbs that the Court might rule more narrowly by modifying the viability standard, rather than abolishing Roe entirely. The fact that the government is not demanding a full overturn of WKA does not mean it would be dissatisfied in the least with that outcome. They essentially leave that choice to SCOTUS.
They want the court to basically redefine what domicile means. But they want to leave WKA fully intact with no revisions
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:41 am to cssamerican
quote:
I think it was pretty clear they had no intention of allowing birth tourism. The illegal alien argument is more difficult because you didn’t have immigration laws that would define what an illegal alien was until years after.
This is correct.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:43 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The fact that the government is not demanding a full overturn of WKA
They're specifically not arguing for any overturn or modification.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Where in that "very detailed historical textual analysis" does the court address the difference between a Mexican Apache and a US Apache?
The decision goes into a very detailed historical-textual analysis of the phrase.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News