- 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 7:47 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Again, a distinction without a difference. The court can find WKA flawed, or subsequent interpretations of WKA flawed. Either interpretation would sit well with the government.
any overturn or modification
1
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:50 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Where in that "very detailed historical textual analysis" does the court address the difference between a Mexican Apache and a US Apache?
Mexican Indians aren't in the idiosyncratic class of people that cause the legal headaches that led to to Elk v. Wilkins.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:51 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Again, a distinction without a difference.
It makes a big distinction from your WKA-centered argument
You need to tell the Solicitor General and admin they're making the wrong argument.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They did not redefine marriage.
Ok.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:52 am to Flats
What change in operative definition of "marriage" occurred?
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Where in Elk versus Wilkins were Mexican Indians specifically addressed? I can't seem to find that. Nor can I find any reference in either ark or elk to the precept of illegal aliens. Can you help me locate those?
Mexican Indians aren't in the idiosyncratic class of people that cause the legal headaches that led to to Elk v. Wilkins.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:So it's your assessment that if the Supreme Court overturns Ark the government would be disappointed?
You need to tell the Solicitor General and admin they're making the wrong argument.
The solicitor general just judged, in this instance, that the latter request might be "a bridge too far," and that asking for a piece of the pie, rather than the entire thing was the more judicious approach.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:55 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
So it's your assessment that if the Supreme Court overturns Ark the government would be disappointed?
That depends on what replaces it. It's not a guarantee this would be good for the government's argument and could be more expansive in protecting BRC by eliminating the "domicile" requirement. Be careful what you wish for.
The admin/SG knows this, too
Posted on 4/7/26 at 11:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:In other words, exactly what we have currently. Yeah well, I'll take my chances.
That depends on what replaces it. It's not a guarantee this would be good for the government's argument and could be more expansive in protecting BRC by eliminating the "domicile" requirement.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 11:14 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
NC_Tigah
Hijack but I sent you a message on xitter! I hope it will make you smile.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 11:50 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
To relegate the author's stated intent to nothing more than one opinion of hundreds is ridiculous.
Scalia had a nice quote about this
quote:
It is not that “the Constitution must mean this because Alexander Hamilton thought it meant this, and he wrote it”; but rather that “the Constitution must mean this because Alexander Hamilton, who for Pete’s sake must have understood the thing, thought it meant this"
Posted on 4/7/26 at 11:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Textual-historical analysis of the limportant language (quotes I posted) which is ultimately based on the reasoning with my follow up post.
You're saying "textual-historical analysis" is THE principle used to carve out exceptions in WKA (1898) to jus soli and was based on oral arguments in 2026? How can that be?
Textual-historical analysis is not a moral or ethical or political principle. It's a method of finding meaning in written texts.
I don't think you're trying to obfuscate. Rather, I think you're answering a question I'm not asking.
I'll try another tack. The very first exception to jus soli - the very first one - on what moral/ethical principle was that first exception based?
From what I can tell, every exception to jus soli expressed in WKA is but a matter of pragmatism.
Posted on 4/8/26 at 12:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You posted one person
Yes. The person who wrote it.
quote:
Hundreds were involved.
Yes. Some never wanted any Chinese or “Mongols” as they termed them or “gypsies” to ever be citizens as their cultures were too dissimilar to American culture.
quote:
Because they relied on textualism
No. The majority opinion relied on British common law. You know, the country we rebelled against because we wanted to be different.
Posted on 4/8/26 at 9:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Pretending the author's intent and interpretation had any more validity than the interpretation of any other voters is even more ridiculous
Can you point to me a single voter who wrote that illegals giving birth in the US are citizens when voting on the amendment?
If not then it appears as the only person writing is the author
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News