- 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 9/28/25 at 8:31 am to Turbeauxdog
Posted on 9/28/25 at 8:31 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
I disagree,
What, exactly, do you think are the differences?
0
Posted on 9/28/25 at 8:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Ignoring the actual words of the Constitution to combat societal problems that couldn't have been foreseen as the writing of the applicable portion is living document nonsense.
Not always. Just because they were not foreseen, doesn't mean it's any great leap to determine how the original framers would have thought about the issue. Example:
Hey, SFP, a penguin just took a dump in your morning oatmeal. Bet you didn't foresee that, right? But you aren't going to eat that oatmeal, are you?
The framers may not have foreseen the kind of transportation advances that make it fairly easy/common for 8 month pregnant non-US citizen women to 'visit' the US and have that baby here. But I don't think it's a stretch to believe that the framers did not intend for that process to result in a baby that is granted US citizen-ship and full lifetime US benefits for that baby. Those women can go home when their visit period ends, and take their baby with them, with no US benefits.
This post was edited on 9/28/25 at 8:39 am
Posted on 9/28/25 at 8:42 am to MidWestGuy
quote:
But I don't think it's a stretch to believe that the framers did not intend for that process to result in a baby that is granted US citizen-ship and full lifetime US benefits for that baby.
a. Framers have nothing to do with this
b. Benefits as in welfare or something else? Because THAT didn't exist at the time, either
c. If that was their intention, they should have used words to reflect that intention.
Again, I will quote Scalia:
quote:
"We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators".
quote:
"The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy".
quote:
"The stark reality is that the only thing that one can say for sure was agreed to by both houses and the President (on signing the bill) is the text of the statute. The rest is legal fiction".
quote:
"The goal of statutory interpretation is to implement the meaning of statutory text, not the intent behind the text".
quote:
"The genuine intent of the legislators—apart from the text—is not only impossible to determine but is also illegitimate as a basis for a court’s decision".
When did Scalia go out of favor on here?
And, will Thomas pull a 180 on the same issue? Historically he has the same feelings on legislative history as a textualist-originalist, like Scalia.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 8:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You can't effectively reverse WKA without engaging in such silliness.
His parents were legal residents of the untied states.
I have no problem with people here legally having their children born becoming united states citizens.
Though i would discount those on short term travel visas.
The idea has never been formally tested for illegal aliens.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 8:57 am to thetempleowl
quote:
His parents were legal residents of the untied states.
Where in the ruling was this phrase stated?
What makes someone "illegal" residents and did that designation come after? By what body/document?
quote:
The idea has never been formally tested for illegal aliens.
If you actually read the case, this doesn't matter.
There are 3 classes of people not "subject to the jurisdiction".
1. Diplomats/family
2. Indians
3. People under foreign occupation
3 has no application as it has not existed since the war of 1812.
2 has no application as Indians were granted citizenship via Congressional statute
So 1 is the only status left
However, ignoring that, where do illegals fit into those 3 classes?
Posted on 9/28/25 at 9:00 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.
How is it written?
Posted on 9/28/25 at 9:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Framers of the amendment/laws/SCOTUS decisions. Think in broader terms.
a. Framers have nothing to do with this
quote:Benefits of citizenship. Those existed at all times (Bill of Rights, etc). So as those rights/benefits get extended, they would be extended to all citizens.
b. Benefits as in welfare or something else? Because THAT didn't exist at the time, either.
quote:That's the 'unforeseen' part. Just because earlier times could not foresee murder by high power laser beam, doesn't mean that the laws against murder don't apply.
c. If that was their intention, they should have used words to reflect that intention.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 9:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
THAT is your argument, then use the amendment process to change the 14A. We are discussing the 14A as it is, now, which has nothing to do with the founders or their intent.
Or we just interpret the clause
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
To mean people who are citizens of another country, which seems completely logical to me.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 10:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
When did Scalia go out of favor on here?
Nothing in your Scalia quotes validates your position. Because apparently you don't know the difference between textualism and Originalism.
The great thing about ai is for people like yourself lacking even a sophomoric understanding of a topic, ai can write you a high level summary.
I suggest you have your favorite model do so.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 10:24 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Or we just interpret the clause
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
Already done in WKA
quote:
To mean people who are citizens of another country, which seems completely logical to me.
Can those people be arrested for crimes here?
Posted on 9/28/25 at 10:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you actually read the case, this doesn't matter.
There are 3 classes of people not "subject to the jurisdiction".
1. Diplomats/family
2. Indians
3. People under foreign occupation
But this isn't the 14thA. This is simply an interpretation that failed to consider future issues. Some Homer Plessy fella told me that bad decisions can be corrected. I'll let him know you disagree.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 10:35 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Because apparently you don't know the difference between textualism and Originalism.
But I do, and have explained it.
You've been given the opportunity to explain your position and have passed.
Just to give a brief summary so people don't twist your lack of answering as some form of validation,
Textualism is focused on the text being interpreted alone.
The question of how you do this isn't specifically framed, which is where originalism comes in.
Originalism is a subset of textualism that frames the textualist analysis above is done. That framing is by relying on the common usage of the terms at the time they were written.
Both reject legislative history/intent, as both are textualist. Originalism specifically rejects modern definitions of the text used.
quote:
The great thing about ai is for people like yourself lacking even a sophomoric understanding of a topic, ai can write you a high level summary.
I'm waiting for you to do this, actually
quote:
What, exactly, do you think are the differences?
Here is a LINK that gets into more detail so people don't remain wrong like you
quote:
Originalism is a modest theory of constitutional interpretation rooted in history that was increasingly forgotten during the 20th century. It is modest because it doesn’t claim to rewrite the Constitution with grand pronouncements or faddish social theories. It simply calls for an understanding of the Constitution based on what the Constitution says.
Originalism’s revival in the 1980s was a reaction to the theory of the “Living Constitution.” That theory called for judges to interpret the Constitution, not according to its language, but rather according to evolving societal standards. In other words, judges shouldn’t focus on what the Constitution says, but what it ought to say if it were written today.
Sounds familiar within this discussion.
quote:
But the original intent version of originalism has mostly fallen out of favor. When Justice Gorsuch talks about originalism, he—like Justice Scalia—is referring to original meaning, which is compatible with textualism.
Once again, Justice Scalia did the best job of explaining this:
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.
Under this definition of originalism, the theory maps very neatly onto textualism. The difference between them is one of scope, not philosophy: Originalism specifically refers to interpreting the Constitution based on the meaning the words carried at the time of writing, whereas textualism refers to interpreting all legal texts by the ordinary meaning of the text, setting aside factors not in the text itself.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 10:36 am to shinerfan
quote:
But this isn't the 14thA.
It's the originalist-textualist analysis of the 14A.
quote:
This is simply an interpretation
The preferred interpretation method of Scalia, Thomas (up until now), Gorsuch, ACB, etc.
quote:
that failed to consider future issues.
THAT is "living document" silliness. Leftist bullshite.
From my link posted above
quote:
Originalism’s revival in the 1980s was a reaction to the theory of the “Living Constitution.” That theory called for judges to interpret the Constitution, not according to its language, but rather according to evolving societal standards. In other words, judges shouldn’t focus on what the Constitution says, but what it ought to say if it were written today. When the Supreme Court engaged in living constitutionalism, the Justices could pretty much ignore its words. By the time we reached the 1960s, our living Constitution had become a mutating virus injected with the philosophical DNA of the interpreting jurists. By using living constitutionalism to rewrite laws in their own constitutional image, conservative scholars accused the Justices of the Warren Court of usurping the powers of the legislative branch.
It was against this backdrop that Ed Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, delivered a speech to the Federalist Society calling for a “jurisprudence based on first principles [that] is neither conservative nor liberal, neither right nor left. It is a jurisprudence that cares about committing and limiting to each organ of government the proper ambit of its responsibilities.” He accused living constitutionalism of being “a chameleon jurisprudence, changing color and form in each era.” Instead, he called for a manner of interpreting the Constitution based on its original language: in other words, originalism.
This post was edited on 9/28/25 at 10:39 am
Posted on 9/28/25 at 10:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
THAT is "living document" silliness. Leftist bullshite.
I wasn't referring to the document but to the interpretation that you love so much. But of course you understand that as well as how weak your argument is so you resort to the infamous "pound the table" cliche. I really don't think you're as dumb as you pretend but it's bizarre that you can't see what a pitiable figure you project.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 11:01 am to shinerfan
quote:
I wasn't referring to the document but to the interpretation
Tomato tomato
The text hasn't changed. If society changes to make the text unpalatable, we have the amendment process.
Again, using your method to ignore the text and original meaning and deal with societal problems, you're opening up the muh muskets bullshite with the 2A, for example.
It's the same argument. The authors of the 2A couldn't foresee our current versions of firearms, just as the authors of the 14A couldn't foresee the conditions precedent to create our illegal immigration problem.
quote:
as well as how weak your argument is
Supreme Court precedent doing a deep dive of originalist, historical-textual analysis is not "weak"
quote:
so you resort to the infamous "pound the table" cliche.
Uh, no. Strawman.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 11:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Already done in WKA
Read the words of the text and stop interpreting the intent.
You must be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government which noncitizens clearly are not. End of story.
quote:
Can those people be arrested for crimes here?
Easy solution to that.
Shitting out citizens is so patently absurd that I would have to question the mental competence of anyone espousing for it. And if the premise of your argument is “it’s the law therefore it must not be absurd” then you are no better than someone who advocates stoning a woman for adultery based on biblical precedent. Stupid laws are stupid. And people legitimizing stupid laws are behaving stupidly.
This post was edited on 9/28/25 at 11:10 am
Posted on 9/28/25 at 11:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The text hasn't changed. If society changes to make the text unpalatable, we have the amendment process.
We also have SCOTUS' authority to fix past mistakes. The interpretation is simply an opinion. It has no revered status.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 11:12 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Read the words of the text and stop interpreting the intent.
Already done in WKA
quote:
You must be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government which noncitizens clearly are not
If they're diplomats, sure. But they're not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US (which is why they can't be arrested).
Otherwise, non-citizens ARE subject to our jurisdiction, which is why they CAN be arrested for crimes committed on US soil.
quote:
Shitting out citizens is so patently absurd that I would have to question the mental competence of anyone espousing for it. And if the premise of your argument is “it’s the law therefore it must not be absurd” then you are no better than someone who advocates stoning a woman for adultery based on biblical precedent.
Look at this dishonest framing.
You're declaring it unilaterally absurd and then proclaiming any response is akin to literal stone age barbarism.
quote:
Stupid laws are stupid.
I agree. That's why we have an amendment process.
Why do you keep ignoring this? There is a solution and that's the solution.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 11:14 am to shinerfan
quote:
We also have SCOTUS' authority to fix past mistakes.
That's creating a "Living Constitution"
Which means, in effect, we have no Constitution.
quote:
The interpretation is simply an opinion. It has no revered status.
That's not entirely accurate in a common law system built on stare decisis.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 11:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
agree. That's why we have an amendment process. Why do you keep ignoring this? There is a solution and that's the solution.
Why would we amend a law which says anchor babies are not citizens?
Read the words.
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News