- 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: Trump asks Supreme Court to review ban on birthright citizenship
Posted on 3/13/25 at 4:57 pm to SlayTime
Posted on 3/13/25 at 4:57 pm to SlayTime
quote:
Jump a wall and fart out a kid on US soil and it’s a citizen?
That sounds retarded because it’s retarded.
I don;t like it -but I would like to see the whole concept clarified =
for instance, the "citizenship of the baby" should NOT be a factor in whether or not the parent(s) get to stay in the country.
THEY have to go back just as they would if no child was involved.
Now they are perfectly encouraged to take their newborn with them (cannot have 'separating families' now can we) OR they can provide for someone to care for the feeding and upbringing of the baby - NOT the US taxpayer.
1
Posted on 3/13/25 at 5:20 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
He should ask them to review making their decision retroactive to 1900.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 5:20 pm to ChineseBandit58
CB, that is not unreasonable.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 5:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The language in question was ratified more than 150 years ago, by the usual processes.
Well…… the ratification of the 14th amendment is a pretty interesting history.
Holding states hostage by disallowing representation in congress in order to pass an Amendment is hardly “usual process”. Neither is military occupation of state legislatures.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 5:31 pm to Crimson
Meh. I am SCV. The southern states seceded. Can’t have it both ways. The Yankees were entitled to set the terms for re-admission.
This post was edited on 3/13/25 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 3/13/25 at 5:39 pm to AggieHank86
To the victor go the spoils. Agreed.
But the 14th Amendment was not a “usual process” nor did it accurately reflect the will of the people who are the Sovereign in this country sufficient to amend our Constitution without duress.
The Southerners were rightly considered fellow citizens after the war ended. Their elected representatives voted against it - interestingly AFTER they had ratified the 13th Amendment and BEFORE the Reconstruction Acts.
But the 14th Amendment was not a “usual process” nor did it accurately reflect the will of the people who are the Sovereign in this country sufficient to amend our Constitution without duress.
The Southerners were rightly considered fellow citizens after the war ended. Their elected representatives voted against it - interestingly AFTER they had ratified the 13th Amendment and BEFORE the Reconstruction Acts.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 5:41 pm to Friendly Satan
quote:
Friendly Satan
Posted on 3/13/25 at 6:29 pm to AggieHank86
Gorsuch and Thomas are locks. Gorsuch has stated that he wants this very issue before the court.
I would not be surprised with a 6-3 victory for the administration because it would likely force these challenges to DC and reduce the forum shopping we have been witnessing.
I would not be surprised with a 6-3 victory for the administration because it would likely force these challenges to DC and reduce the forum shopping we have been witnessing.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 6:41 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
I give it a 50/50 shot.
I find the arguments against to be credible but decades of tradition maybe too much to overcome.
I find the arguments against to be credible but decades of tradition maybe too much to overcome.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 6:43 pm to TrueTiger
Same
Posted on 3/13/25 at 6:49 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
I thought this was settled already?
Posted on 3/13/25 at 6:55 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
This matter needs further litigation; that is irrefutable.
Predicting its outcome before the SC is a fool’s errand, as demonstrated by the many whose wildest imaginings could not bring them the robed credential after which they so impotently lust…
Predicting its outcome before the SC is a fool’s errand, as demonstrated by the many whose wildest imaginings could not bring them the robed credential after which they so impotently lust…
Posted on 3/13/25 at 7:12 pm to TrueTiger
quote:95:5, if that much.
I give it a 50/50 shot. I find the arguments against to be credible but decades of tradition maybe too much to overcome.
One, maybe two, SCOTUS Justices will be willing to ignore the plain language of the Constitution to support Trump.
This post was edited on 3/13/25 at 7:18 pm
Posted on 3/13/25 at 7:33 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
One, maybe two, SCOTUS Justices will be willing to ignore the plain language of the Constitution to support Trump.
The only play is to have them narrowly define “subject to the jurisdiction” - meaning not owing allegiance to another power.
A citizen of Mexico is entitled to partial jurisdiction here but not citizenship (complete jurisdiction) by way of being on our soil.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 9:56 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The question is “what does the Constitution say,” and it takes a VERY strained reading to come up with anything other than “birthright citizenship”
This is simply false. The guy who wrote the amendment literally said it wasn't for illegal aliens. How much clearer can it be? It's you lawyers straining all logic and common sense to think the 14th Amendment applies to anyone but former slaves and the children of citizens.
Wong doesn't give citizenship to illegal aliens, either, despite the many vain attempts to convince people it does.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 10:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You can either be a Textualist or a Democrat. Sometimes the text just does not produce what you consider to be the “best policy.“
One of the biggest problems with this country, and probably humans in general, is the incessant need to do stupid things because it's written somewhere that we should do stupid things. It shows how many people are just mindless sheep.
Whether it was a rule, a law, an understanding, I've never followed something stupid simply because I was expected to and the majority of people did. Lawyers are a big reason we can't get by on common sense, though. They are snakes always looking to make a buck at someone else's expense, even if it's bad for the entire country. Get rid of lawyers and brainless idiots and our country will be well on its way to healing.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News