- 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: What's the argument FOR birthright citizenship?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:57 am to lionward2014
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:57 am to lionward2014
quote:Interpretation creating Constitutional contradiction is not SCOTUS's job to prevent?
Does it create an absurd situation, absolutely, but that's not SCOTUS's job to prevent.
That is such an interesting take.
1
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:01 pm to lionward2014
quote:
If suddenly we agree illegals aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US anymore then SCOTUS would be bound to overturn the case today would they not?
Duck, dodge, and dive.
The meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” at the writing of the Amendment is not the same as our colloquial usage of “subject to the jurisdiction” today. Feel free to disagree with objective reality.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:05 pm to wookalar1013
quote:
Have you ever worked with a Mexican? Lazy is one of the last words I’d choose
Positive stereotypes are as unhelpful as negative ones.
There are millions of indolent Mexicans. And Guatemalans. And Salvadorans.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:09 pm to kingbob
quote:
Justice Roberts is not an originalist or a formalist. Above all things, he is an institutionalist. He seeks to preserve the Supreme Court and tends to bias against decisions that would result in massive amounts of new litigation. Essentially, eliminating birthright citizenship for millions of people by judicial or executive decree would create massive amounts of chaos and litigation to sort it out. While lawyers might love that, Roberts does not. The federal court system is already clogged enough as it is.
Where was this logic when Roberts voted against tariffs that were already collected?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
creating Constitutional contradiction is not SCOTUS's job to prevent?
How is it a contradiction? Nothing in the reading of the 14th that SCOTUS did today contradicts the Article II requirements for POTUS.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:11 pm to TBoy
quote:
For those that are born here, this is their homeland, and the only homeland they know.
What if you were born on a plane flying over the Antarctic? Are you a citizen of the plane or Antarctica?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:14 pm to lionward2014
quote:Goodness.
How is it a contradiction?
What is the premise driving the Article II clause?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:15 pm to the808bass
quote:
The meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” at the writing of the Amendment is not the same as our colloquial usage of “subject to the jurisdiction” today. Feel free to disagree with objective reality.
The majority addresses this and disagrees with you. Feel free to disagree with objective reality.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:17 pm to DeathValley85
There are none. No sentient being could misinterpret this the way the 5 SC clowns just did.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:21 pm to lionward2014
quote:
The majority addresses this and disagrees with you. Feel free to disagree with objective reality.
Lol. The majority in Wong Kim Ark didn’t give a shite what “subject to the jurisdiction” meant when it was written.
Or are you talking about today’s decision?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:26 pm to the808bass
quote:
Lol. The majority in Wong Kim Ark didn’t give a shite what “subject to the jurisdiction” meant when it was written.
Or are you talking about today’s decision?
Latching onto the minority opinion because it aligns with your feelings is very lib coded. Speak your truth tho honey.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:27 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
What is the premise driving the Article II clause?
Just for clarification this is the whole of the text:
quote:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
This is to say that the child that was born in the US, immediately whisked away to China, and then comes back at age 35 to run for POTUS still wouldn't meet the third part of the requirements.
The Constitution also sets a lower limit on the requirements. If Congress wants to pass a law that dual citizens aren't allowed to be POTUS nothing would stop them constitutionally. I've stated my position on this board before that no one in Congress nor POTUS nor SCOTUS should be able to be dual citizens, and I would go even further to into the top level of all the executive agencies.
So is it absurd that a child can be born in the US, live in China until they are 18, move back to the US, and run for POTUS at 35, yes, but it is not a contradiction.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:28 pm to the808bass
quote:
The majority in Wong Kim Ark didn’t give a shite what “subject to the jurisdiction” meant when it was written.
Or are you talking about today’s decision?
Why would I be arguing over a 100+ year old case now that we have a 3 hour old case that is directly on point to the discussion at hand?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:30 pm to lionward2014
Ok. So you don’t give a shite what it meant when it was written either.
And we’re back to my ultra-salient question.
Shift in semantic meaning could be a legitimate reason to re-litigate in the future.
And we’re back to my ultra-salient question.
Shift in semantic meaning could be a legitimate reason to re-litigate in the future.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:31 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
Latching onto the minority opinion because it aligns with your feelings is very lib coded.
frick your mom, illiterate bitch.
Nothing I posted in that post is connected to anything in your post, darling.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:35 pm to uggabugga
quote:Exactly.
No sentient being could misinterpret this the way the 5 SC clowns just did.
Perhaps someone could point out what, under today's interpretation, "foreigners" or "aliens" could possibly mean.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:36 pm to the808bass
quote:
And we’re back to my ultra-salient question.
Shift in semantic meaning could be a legitimate reason to re-litigate in the future.
If anything our concept of jurisdiction has shifted MORE in favor of birthright citizenship than less. Given it's common parlance jurisdiction in 2026 is "can this legal authority be exerted over this person" and has no tie to "allegiance." Look at the suits that are able to be brought in federal civil court or even the fact that we are processing the president of Venezuela under our domestic criminal laws. Under the reading you are asking us to adopt, none of that would be possible.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:37 pm to lionward2014
quote:
If anything our concept of jurisdiction has shifted MORE in favor of birthright citizenship than less.
Now we’re getting somewhere.
There has been a shift in how the words are understood.
Do the shifts in understanding govern the interpretation of the law?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:37 pm to MMauler
quote:
You mean like the Chinese who send women over here who are nine months pregnant to have their babies on American soil and then bring them back and raise them in China? Then, years later, they send them over here as US citizens to be Chinese spies.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:38 pm to lionward2014
quote:I asked a question. You avoided it. I'll ask it again. What is the premise of the constitutional requirement for natural born citizenship in Article II?
but it is not a contradiction.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News