- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 trying to end birthright citizenship
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:47 am to mmmmmbeeer
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:47 am to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
Not by EO.
Um, have you not paid attention to all the EOs.
Emancipation Proclamation says "Hi".
0
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:49 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
This is true, but it doesn't mean that the kid wasn't under Singaporean jurisdiction
He wasn't a Singaporean Subject, although they did prosecute him under their criminal code. We do the same when Australian tourists drunk in the French Quarter piss in public at 3:00am. Once again, being able to be prosecuted under a nation or locality's criminal code does not equal being a subject of the jurisdiction. Those words sound similar, but they are not the same thing. One is describing what country one belongs to, and the other describes physical power over someone. I can subject you to a knuckle check you at Sonic, but that doesn't mean you're Subject to the jurisdiction of Bob Land, where I am the reigning monarch. You're still a "subject' of the United States because you're a citizen of that country, not mine (assuming you didn't apply for a visa to live here lawfully).
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:49 am to BBONDS25
This 10 page thread should be evidence enough that SCOTUS needs to rule one way or the other.
Trump just pulled the pin and lobbed the grenade right in the middle of the criminal "caravan". Take cover!!
Trump just pulled the pin and lobbed the grenade right in the middle of the criminal "caravan". Take cover!!
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:49 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Spare us the face saving attempts. If your position is correct, Bill Clinton would have successfully kept MIchael Fay's arse from being beaten by Singaporean authorities.
This post makes me cringe. You don’t really even know what you are arguing. The authors of the 14th Amendment stated “under the jurisdiction of” as applied to the 14th Amendment meant those that do not owe loyalty to a foreign nation. The question is whether a child born of citizens of a foreign nation are citizens of that nation as well. And does being a citizen place a duty of loyalty.
Those are all legal terms that need to be parsed to determine whether, under the 14th Amendment, a child born of illegal aliens is “under the jurisdiction”.
That legal analysis has precisely zero to do with Clinton or Singapore.
Again...you fail to grasp what the suprem Court has made clear. There are many definitions of “under the jurisdiction”.
You want your laymen’s definition to apply universally. That isn’t how it works.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:50 am to BBONDS25
quote:
It’s a fact the definition by the ones who passed the amendment is different than yours.
And yet, it’s not in the amendment.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:52 am to ohiovol
quote:
And yet, it’s not in the amendment.
Hence why Trump is considering issuing an Executive Order to force a court challenge where the SCOTUS can make that determination once and for all. Whether or not Trump is right is far less important than actually getting SCOTUS to rule one way or the other.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:53 am to TbirdSpur2010
Wanna change it then go through the Amendment process. Either you are for the Constitution and want to follow it or you really don't .....the Constitution does not end at the 2nd Amendment
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:53 am to ohiovol
quote:
And yet, it’s not in the amendment.
Precisely. That’s the beauty of the Constitution!
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:53 am to Dale51
quote:I think "brain dead" is more accurate.
Trump is just trying to provide a distraction from the MAGAbomber, the Nazi who shot up the synagogue, and the racist who recently killed some blacks.
You're brainwashed.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 10:07 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:57 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Wanna change it then go through the Amendment process. Either you are for the Constitution and want to follow it or you really don't .....the Constitution does not end at the 2nd Amendment
You're from NZ. Didn't they overturn their BC? What were there reasonings for it?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:58 am to BRTigerDad
quote:
Trump is just trying to provide a distraction from the MAGAbomber, the Nazi who shot up the synagogue, and the racist who recently killed some blacks.
You're an idiot. A verifiable idiot.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:01 am to cokebottleag
quote:
So how likely do you think it is that the SCOTUS will rule in favor of Trump's interpretation?
I can't imagine Kav, Gorsuch, Thomas, or Alito ruling against Trump on his interpretation based on a textual argument. Trump has the legislative intent argument on lock because the author of the 14th Amendment's quotes are pretty damn conclusive as are the 80 years of Supreme Court precedents and Congressional statutes that were required to specifically carve out birthright citizenship for Native Americans and legal immigrants while exempting ambassadors and diplomats.
I also cannot imagine Kagan, Sotomayor, RBG, or Breyer siding with POTUS for any reason.
That makes Roberts the swing vote. In my opinion, I think Roberts would side with the liberal justices purely on the grounds that to reverse the past 40 years of practice would create disastrous consequences for millions of people.
However, I could very well be wrong. Perhaps Roberts would put governing interests aside and make the ruling based purely on the text.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:05 am to kingbob
quote:
That makes Roberts the swing vote. In my opinion, I think Roberts would side with the liberal justices
Thats o.k. Ruth Baader Mienhof will be gone by then. Until then the EO stands.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:07 am to cokebottleag
quote:
Look at the timing here, just after Kavabaw gets seated. You don't think this might have been planned?
In the interviews for the nominee to determine who Trump would nominate, you don't think he asked each justice: Suppose I challenged the 14th interpretation. How would you rule?
You are going to be sorely surprised if you think Kavanaugh would be on Trumps side here.
This has to be done through the amendment process, and I say this as someone in favor of ending it.
We are a nation of laws and those have a process to be be changed, ruling by fiat is bad for this country and needs to stop.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:09 am to BigJim
quote:
basically the US, Canada, and bunch of other countries no one would want to move to.
Almost all are in the Western Hemisphere too, which makes sense, as those countries have historically used immigration to bolster their population.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:11 am to BRTigerDad
quote:
The 14th A is as clear and direct as it gets. If you are born here then you are a citizen, period.
No you're not if you comprehend the following:
quote:
Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that "there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret – subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
"What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship,” Anton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July. “If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.”
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:12 am to crazy4lsu
Why wouldn’t trump just blackmail Roberts like Obama did 
or does time traveler trump know he will have replaced a liberal justice by the time court rules 
I’ll take both Alex 
or does time traveler trump know he will have replaced a liberal justice by the time court rules I’ll take both Alex 
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:12 am to kingbob
quote:
Hence why Trump is considering issuing an Executive Order to force a court challenge where the SCOTUS can make that determination once and for all. Whether or not Trump is right is far less important than actually getting SCOTUS to rule one way or the other.
3D Chess now that Kavabaw is on the Court
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:12 am to cave canem
quote:
You are going to be sorely surprised if you think Kavanaugh would be on Trumps side here. This has to be done through the amendment process,
Non Sequitur.
Until it gets to that point Kav has nothing to do with it.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:13 am to kingbob
quote:That there is the answer.
Trump has the legislative intent argument on lock because the author of the 14th Amendment's quotes are pretty damn conclusive as are the 80 years of Supreme Court precedents and Congressional statutes that were required to specifically carve out birthright citizenship for Native Americans and legal immigrants while exempting ambassadors and diplomats.
For those arguing "Change the Amendment", that is not required. What will be required is the interpretation of the Amendment by the courts. And hopefully it will be with the original intent of the authors of the Amendment, and not with the sky screamers who claim it applies to anchor babies.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 10:16 am
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News