- 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 to vote on birthright citizenship...Trump is concerned as to their ruling.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:03 am to aTmTexas Dillo
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:03 am to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
I blame this on the writers of the 14th Amendment. Their judgement was not as sagacious as the Founding Fathers.
Context means everything here.
AI Overview
Representative John Bingham of Ohio is primarily credited as the author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, earning him the nickname "Father of the 14th Amendment". Drafted in 1866 as part of the Reconstruction efforts, his work established foundational protections for citizenship, equal protection, and due process.
Key details regarding the writing of the 14th Amendment include:
John Bingham: A Radical Republican and former abolitionist, Bingham designed Section 1 to ensure that states could not deny citizens' constitutional rights.
The Joint Committee on Reconstruction: While Bingham wrote the key Section 1, the overall amendment was crafted by a committee of moderate and Radical Republicans in Congress.
Influences: The 14th Amendment was intended to provide constitutional backing for the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and to ensure that Southern states could not enforce "Black Codes" to limit the freedom of formerly enslaved people.
Key Contributions: Beyond Bingham, other members of Congress and the Joint Committee contributed to the final text, which was passed by Congress in 1866 and ratified in 1868.
National Archives (.gov)
The 14th Amendment was a crucial, transformative addition to the Constitution, designed to redefine American citizenship in the wake of the Civil War.
0
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:04 am to beaux duke
quote:
being appointed by trump in no way requires that justices vote to support his demands
You are exactly right!!
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:06 am to Ailsa
This was always going to be an uphill climb.
The way you stop this is by preventing pregnant women or foreign women planning to be pregnant from entering or remaining in the country to begin with.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Congress can't invalidate the Constitutional baseline with this authority.
They can define "lawful jurisdiction' in a manner that complies with the actual words.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:11 am to TDsngumbo
quote:
The amendment literally says Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of the article.
Yes, which doesn't allow Congress to rewrite the amendment and change the Constitutional baseline guaranteed by it.
So, for instance, defining "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in a way that conflicts or limits that Constitutional baseline would be illegal.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:12 am to shinerfan
quote:
They can define "lawful jurisdiction' in a manner that complies with the actual words.
Only if that definition falls within Constitutional baselines and doesn't conflict with the interpretation of "the actual words"
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:13 am to Ailsa
He is riffing.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:13 am to Trevaylin
quote:
as a private company he could pick the folks most likely to advance the white race
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:14 am to beaux duke
At least the tiger is showing its true stripes.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:19 am to udtiger
quote:
US didn't do it either, but this SCOTUS isn't about to unring that bell.
Biggest mistaken assumption by a government ever.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:22 am to TDsngumbo
quote:
The amendment literally says Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of the article.
To enforce the provisions, not to alter or narrow their meaning. That would need an amendment.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:23 am to Trevaylin
quote:
as a private company he could pick the folks most likely to advance the white race
That's certainly something.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:39 am to Ailsa
I think for birthright citizenship to apply, the parents or mother must have legally been in the country. Even if on a short term visa or even just on vacation.
It’s bullshite to think that birthright citizenship should apply to a 9 month pregnant lady who illegally hops the border and has her baby just for that purpose
It’s bullshite to think that birthright citizenship should apply to a 9 month pregnant lady who illegally hops the border and has her baby just for that purpose
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:42 am to statman34
quote:
2 years will have gone by and we will have very little accomplishments with a majority in all 3 branches of govt. It's a shame and quite disappointing to think what could have been done. And all of it is the Dems fault
so passing nothing of consequence while controlling all branches of gov't is the dems fault?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:44 am to TBoy
quote:
The Constitution’s citizenship clause applies to everyone, and is not “for illegal aliens.”
So youre a letter of the law as opposed to considering intent type of guy? I’m surprised. I love it. Let’s discuss the second amendment.
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 11:48 am
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:48 am to deltaland
quote:
I think for birthright citizenship to apply, the parents or mother must have legally been in the country. Even if on a short term visa or even just on vacation.
That is where I am at. "Subject to the jurisdiction" in my opinion should mean that you voluntarily placed yourselves in the United States and under the auspices of US law. You placed yourself in the governance of the US.
I don't think someone who has never interacted with "the United States," much less its laws, other than sneaking in the country inside a gas tank and picking avocados---should be included.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:55 am to Indefatigable
quote:
"Subject to the jurisdiction" in my opinion should mean that you voluntarily placed yourselves in the United States and under the auspices of US law. You placed yourself in the governance of the US.
But it's not. That's why we can still arrest illegal aliens for murder. It's a legal boundary on all people within our borders beyond diplomats.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 11:56 am to AUFANATL
quote:
The way you stop this is by preventing pregnant women or foreign women planning to be pregnant from entering or remaining in the country to begin with.
What about all the H1b's bringing their families to live here?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 12:05 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
That is where I am at. "Subject to the jurisdiction" in my opinion should mean that you voluntarily placed yourselves in the United States and under the auspices of US law. You placed yourself in the governance of the US.
I don't think someone who has never interacted with "the United States," much less its laws, other than sneaking in the country inside a gas tank and picking avocados---should be included.
I think there is a solid shot they do rule you have to be domiciled here, which would hurt birth tourism but not illegals having children, for the most part.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 12:06 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
But it's not. That's why we can still arrest illegal aliens for murder. It's a legal boundary on all people within our borders beyond diplomats.
I understand the interpretation well.
Its bad policy but it is what it is. I don't see SCOTUS going back on it at this point.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News