- 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: SCOTUS Opinion Day - June 30
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:12 am to atlgamecockman
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:12 am to atlgamecockman
I think Kav actually has the most correct opinion on this one, tbh.
Kavanaugh’s opinion is that Trump’s executive order goes beyond the authority granted to him in 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) to define exceptions for birthright citizenship.
However, he holds that Wong Kim’s 4 exceptions to birthright citizenship (which were incorporated into law via statute 1401) were not necessary the only exceptions that could be implemented. It is Kav’s opinion that Congress could add additional exemptions to 1401, it just couldn’t take away the 4 exemptions from Wong Kim. Basically, Congress could pass more restrictions on birthright citizenship, but it could not pass less.
Thus, it is Kav’s opinion that Congress could restrict birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, but that the president could not do so via an executive order. If I were a justice on the Supreme Court, this would have been my opinion as well.
Kavanaugh’s opinion is that Trump’s executive order goes beyond the authority granted to him in 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) to define exceptions for birthright citizenship.
However, he holds that Wong Kim’s 4 exceptions to birthright citizenship (which were incorporated into law via statute 1401) were not necessary the only exceptions that could be implemented. It is Kav’s opinion that Congress could add additional exemptions to 1401, it just couldn’t take away the 4 exemptions from Wong Kim. Basically, Congress could pass more restrictions on birthright citizenship, but it could not pass less.
Thus, it is Kav’s opinion that Congress could restrict birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, but that the president could not do so via an executive order. If I were a justice on the Supreme Court, this would have been my opinion as well.
1
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
His specific argument, however, is just that the EO violated Congressional law and he left it there. The rest was just his big-government pornography addiction.
Can you read? He did not just "leave it there". He very clearly stated that BC is not guaranteed by the Constitution.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:13 am to JimEverett
quote:
But imo the best way to have gotten any part of the EO upheld is to argue that illegals are domiciled in the U.S., and are permanently so (if that matters). People here on temporary visas are not domiciled and thus any child born to them are not citizens.
That + birth tourists. It would have been a single, but they went for the home run and struck out.
Now the precedent is that domicile has no real role in the analysis, like you said. Huge, MASSIVE L
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:15 am to kingbob
quote:
However, he holds that Wong Kim’s 4 exceptions to birthright citizenship (which were incorporated into law via statute 1401) were not necessary the only exceptions that could be implemented. It is Kav’s opinion that Congress could add additional exemptions to 1401, it just couldn’t take away the 4 exemptions from Wong Kim. Basically, Congress could pass more restrictions on birthright citizenship, but it could not pass less.
Thus, it is Kav’s opinion that Congress could restrict birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, but that the president could not do so via an executive order. If I were a justice on the Supreme Court, this would have been my opinion as well.
This argues that Congress is superior to the Constitution, effectively
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That + birth tourists. It would have been a single, but they went for the home run and struck out.
Stephen Miller never met a problem he didn't want to try to fix with a hammer instead of a chisel, final results be damned.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It would have been a single, but they went for the home run and struck out.
Par for the course with the level of attorneys working for this admin. Always going for big swings to give some red meat to the MAGA base and stroke the ravenous ego of the President.
Little legal analysis is done on how to actually effectuate change, and you lose at SCOTUS. Tariffs were much the same. That's what happens when you only get sycophants working for you, you lose out on expertise.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This argues that Congress is superior to the Constitution, effectively
And this is simply a lie. Your typical hysterics after being proven wrong. Must be one of those days when the sun rises in the East.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:17 am to rt3
quote:
Roberts concludes that children born to parents who are in the United States unlawfully or temporarily are "born in the United States" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." "Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth."
It is mind numbing to read this aloud. Imagine breaking into a business and the courts ruling no theft took place because your presence gave you a legal claim to the business. As such you have free use of all the merchandise and cash in the safe and the accounts. Imagine this scenario but all you had to do was walk in the door..
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:18 am to lionward2014
quote:Yep. The problem is nobody in 1868 could have possibly foreseen the consequences of that language being an invasion of third-worlders seeking the benefits of a giant welfare state; that concept would have been unbelievably alien.
Then the drafters of the 14th should have used allegiance instead of jurisdiction shouldn't they?
Unfortunately, those unintended consequences now benefit the party which seeks to destroy every traditionally American institution and demographic, so Congress also effectively has no ability to curb or reverse it.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:18 am to SlowFlowPro
Roberts, Barret, and the 3 liberals essentially affirmed Wong Kim and held that Wong Kim’s 4 exceptions:
1. Children of foreign diplomats
2. Children born on foreign public ships
3. Enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part.m of our territory; and
4. Children of Indian tribes
are the only possible exceptions to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
The breakdown of this opinion is:
Majority - birthright citizenship can only be amended via constitutional amendment
Kav - birthright citizenship could be partially amended via federal statute, but not by executive order
Dissent - birthright citizenship could be partially amended by executive order
1. Children of foreign diplomats
2. Children born on foreign public ships
3. Enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part.m of our territory; and
4. Children of Indian tribes
are the only possible exceptions to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
The breakdown of this opinion is:
Majority - birthright citizenship can only be amended via constitutional amendment
Kav - birthright citizenship could be partially amended via federal statute, but not by executive order
Dissent - birthright citizenship could be partially amended by executive order
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:19 am to lionward2014
quote:
Stephen Miller never met a problem he didn't want to try to fix with a hammer instead of a chisel, final results be damned.
The right in general is like this. Especially with the Courts. There is no incremental strategy, or at least not much of one. But our side is way way behind the left's legal industrial complex
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:20 am to JimEverett
quote:Were slaves, brought here against their will, permanently domiciled here? Ultimately, that's why the "domicile" question fails. If anyone could argue they weren't domiciled and allegent to the US it would be the very people the amendment was designed to protect.
But imo the best way to have gotten any part of the EO upheld is to argue that illegals are domiciled in the U.S., and are permanently so (if that matters).
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:20 am to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
It is mind numbing to read this aloud. Imagine breaking into a business and the courts ruling no theft took place because your presence gave you a legal claim to the business. As such you have free use of all the merchandise and cash in the safe and the accounts. Imagine this scenario but all you had to do was walk in the door..
That's quit literally not what happened.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:20 am to TideCPA
quote:
The problem is nobody in 1868 could have possibly foreseen the consequences of that language being an invasion of third-worlders seeking the benefits of a giant welfare state; that concept would have been unbelievably alien.
The founders didn't know we'd be able to talk to the entire world with an electrical brick that fits in our pocket. Free speech doesn't apply to posting online.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:23 am to TideCPA
quote:
Yep. The problem is nobody in 1868 could have possibly foreseen the consequences of that language being an invasion of third-worlders seeking the benefits of a giant welfare state; that concept would have been unbelievably alien.
The Constitution isn't a living, breathing document that is interpreted on the whims of the public sentiment at the time.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:24 am to Ingeniero
quote:Huh? I'm arguing the same words apply in the modern context. For speech, that's a good thing because it's consistent with the intentions of the drafters of that amendment.
The founders didn't know we'd be able to talk to the entire world with an electrical brick that fits in our pocket. Free speech doesn't apply to posting online.
For birthright citizenship, it's a bad thing because it now gives auto-citizenship to the most undesirable demographics on the planet.
If you went back in time and polled the framers about whether speech should apply to new mediums, they would clearly say yes. If you polled the framers of the 14th amendment whether it should apply to welfare tourists they would be appalled.
But alas, words have meaning, so we're stuck with an awful reality with respect to birthright citizenship and a giant welfare state.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:24 am to TideCPA
quote:Yup. Just like the nobody in 1789 could have possibly foreseen the consequences of semi-automatic firearms (2A), radio, TV, or social media (1A).
Yep. The problem is nobody in 1868 could have possibly foreseen the consequences of that language being an invasion of third-worlders seeking the benefits of a giant welfare state; that concept would have been unbelievably alien.
Guess those should be overridable with an EO too?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:25 am to Ingeniero
quote:
The founders didn't know we'd be able to talk to the entire world with an electrical brick that fits in our pocket. Free speech doesn't apply to posting online.
They had telegraphs in 1868
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:27 am to lionward2014
quote:Did I say it was? I simply said their chosen verbiage has created an unintended, functionally unsolvable problem for our current society. But it means what it means.
The Constitution isn't a living, breathing document that is interpreted on the whims of the public sentiment at the time.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:27 am to kingbob
quote:
They had telegraphs in 1868
And they had wandering gypsies and suspicious Chinese in 1868. Weird how the language chosen was anyway.
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News