- 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 has officially petitioned the SCOTUS to allow him to END birthright citizenship
Posted on 9/27/25 at 10:55 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/27/25 at 10:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
When the sole discussion is the 14th Amendment? Yes.
So the founding ideas and documents are irrelevant.
The intent of the 14th is irrelevant.
What’s relevant to you is pretty limited and limiting. Almost like you’re a fricking retard.
1
Posted on 9/27/25 at 10:57 am to DCtiger1
quote:
The intent behind that section of the 14th was to address the rights of freed slaves and the children of slaves to become US citizens.
The problem is the actual text does not reflect this limited framing.
quote:
The country wasn’t facing a massive illegal immigration crisis during the reconstruction period when this was voted on.
"Illegal immigration" didn't exist, which creates other problems with an intent-based analysis.
If the authors of the Amendment couldn't envision the problem you're describing when the Amendment was written, how can it address its relationship to that problem?
If something new comes along like illegal immigration that the text can't account for, we have the amendment process to address the problem. That is the LITERAL point of the amendment process.
Otherwise you're just arguing for a living document, which is leftist bullshite.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 10:58 am to the808bass
quote:
So the founding ideas and documents are irrelevant.
Why would they be relevant when whatever effects they had in this discussion were superseded by the 14A?
quote:
What’s relevant to you is pretty limited and limiting. Almost like you’re a fricking retard.
Or I understand basics in legal analysis and how our government works.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:03 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The problem is the actual text does not reflect this limited framing.
Which means it’s open to interpretation, correct?
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:08 am to DCtiger1
quote:
Which means it’s open to interpretation, correct?
The actual text is, limited by that text.
quote:
“The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy. We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators.”
quote:
“[t]he text is the law, and it is the text that must be observed.”
quote:
The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don’t care about the intent, and I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.
-Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas has the same philosophy. We'll see if that turns into the past tense with his writing on this issue.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:10 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
So Donnie’s kids are gonna have to go back.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:11 am to Stonehenge
quote:
So Donnie’s kids are gonna have to go back.
As dumb as the author of the X post in OP
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
I get what you're doing in this thread... but the 14th amendment was a solution to the status of freed slaves.
Maybe debate on that rather than well ackshually'ing about the founding fathers.
I cede that the founding fathers did not author an amendment ratified in 1868.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:22 am to SallysHuman
quote:
but the 14th amendment was a solution to the status of freed slaves.
Maybe debate on that rather than well ackshually'ing about the founding fathers.
I have addressed both, FWIW.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I have addressed both, FWIW.
Not really... much of your posting in this thread is gotcha sniping.
The two posts that aren't, really don't address the meaning or intent of the 14th amendment. Just a bunch of drivel about interpretation differences and the amendment process.
You are usually a little higher effort in these kinds of threads.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:28 am to DCtiger1
quote:Now do first and second amendments.
Which means it’s open to interpretation, correct?
Surely the founders only thought they’d apply to newspapers and muskets, amiright?
This post was edited on 9/27/25 at 11:30 am
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:31 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:And I still don’t understand how a constitutional amendment can be repealed by “petitioning” the Supreme court. That’s not the process.
Trump has officially petitioned the SCOTUS to allow him to END birthright citizenship
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What do the founders have to do with anything in this discussion?
Pretty clear this was the exact sentiment of those who ratified the 14th.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:37 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Now do first and second amendments. Surely the founders only thought they’d apply to newspapers and muskets, amiright?
This is so played out.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:39 am to SallysHuman
quote:Nice deflection
This is so played out.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:41 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Nice deflection
The Bill of Rights is designed to restrict the government. You know this. I know this. Which is why I don't understand the "but musket" argument.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:53 am to SallysHuman
quote:And the sky is blue. You know this. I know this.
The Bill of Rights is designed to restrict the government.
quote:That was obvious. But your ignorance isn’t proof of anything.
Which is why I don't understand the "but musket" argument.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:54 am to Passing Wind
Wonder who?
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:55 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
That was obvious. But your ignorance isn’t proof of anything.
Explain your musket argument then. Please, educate me.
Posted on 9/27/25 at 11:55 am to VoxDawg
Page 2 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News