- 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: Why Trumpsigned EO to end birthright citizenship
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:36 am to the808bass
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:36 am to the808bass
quote:Just like "well regulated malitia" means congress can pass laws to restrict gun ownership.
You’ve fallen into the language trap. The term “subject to the jurisdiction” as it is used in the 14th amendment is not a one-to-one correspondent with how you’re using it.
1
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:37 am to SlowFlowPro
You did correctly identify that it was about you.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This makes negative sense
That is literally what the literal reading of the text denotes.
Who makes more sense on jurisprudence?
Dude who has half a million posts on Tiger Droppings OR
Richard Posner.
Tough call.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:38 am to Taxing Authority
I have no idea what you mean with that post. The original intent was not to grant carte blanche birthright citizenship. They said it out loud. You can read about it. I don’t know what else to tell you.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:38 am to the808bass
quote:
The one who wrote it? Sure.
You know that there were dozens, if not hundreds, of people involved in the process, right? Each has their own personal view that's just as valid.
That's why we don't tend to rely on such things, especially when that requires ignoring the actual text and historical use of the text.
quote:
Congress was worried that this exact result would be the consequence of the amendment. They only allowed the addition of the clause because they were assured that it did not give carte blanche birthright citizenship.
You'd think if this was convincing, you'd have some case law of note that agrees. I've asked you for this earlier, haev you found it yet?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:39 am to the808bass
quote:
You did correctly identify that it was about you.
Your devolution makes you transparent.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:39 am to JimEverett
quote:
Who makes more sense on jurisprudence?
Dude who has half a million posts on Tiger Droppings OR
Richard Posner.
Tough call.
When SFP is proven right, they respond with ad homs
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The text and history are clear. You just reject it b/c you want a different outcome.
This is incorrect and you are incorrect.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:40 am to the808bass
quote:
This is incorrect and you are incorrect.
Then show me the case law that agrees with you.
I can show you multiple Supreme Court cases that say you're wrong.
This post was edited on 1/22/25 at 8:40 am
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:40 am to JBlutarsky
quote:
No they aren't.
I mean... we can always just read the thread. quote:Just like the Leftist like to say "you don't have a right to own a weapon of war!". Saying what you want doesn't equal what the Constitution says.
They're saying that if you're not here legally and have a child that child isn't automatically a citizen.
I'm no fan of birthright citizenship, for people here illegally. That *badly* needs to be clarified or established. But that can't be done with an EO, any more than the the 2A can be repealed by EO. This is going to require at least a legislative fix, but more likely a constitutional amendment. Let's get *that* done!
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:40 am to SlowFlowPro
You do not always correctly identify it as about yourself. So I was helping your endorphins by confirming. It’s a public service really. Did you sit up straighter in your chair? I’ll bet you did. Attaboy.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:42 am to JimEverett
Seems like the USSC is going to have to decide whether or not jus soli applies to the children of illegal immigrants. Lots of opinions on both sides but never an official ruling. Seems like most people have the opinion "oh the supreme court won't support that, don't try" or "that will take a long time". Well we've got four years, and the worst they can say is no. I don't see an issue in finally forcing the matter after 2 decades of attempts.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:42 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
But that can't be done with an EO
I do agree with this. But a ruling from the Supreme Court could confirm that it has to be done through amendment.
Should Congress pass a law instead to see if would get through the Supreme Court? What would be the practical difference between that and an EO?
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:44 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
I'm no fan of birthright citizenship, for people here illegally. That *badly* needs to be clarified or established. But that can't be done with an EO, any more than the the 2A can be repealed by EO. This is going to require at least a legislative fix, but more likely a constitutional amendment. Let's get *that* done!
Seven pages and we finally get the correct answer
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:45 am to Tridentds
quote:
It also depends on the court and political belief of the judge(s). I think about a 60-65% chance it is upheld.
You know that idiot Roberts is going to vote with Kagan, Jumanji, and the wise Latina. It will all come down to ACB.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Then show me the case law that agrees with you.
Oh. I thought you meant the original amendment. My bad. You meant the text of the ruling on the amendment.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:46 am to SlowFlowPro
We're talking about a time period where a good amount of the US population was still 1st or 2nd generation immigrants from Europe, there were countless Native American tribes still roaming the country, slaves had just been freed, etc. The whole idea of who was and wasn't a citizen based on the modern idea of being a citizen of country didn't really exist. They wouldn't have had a term for a "legal US citizen" vs "illegal immigrant" like we use today.
"Jurisdiction" was their way of saying "citizen" as we use the term citizen today.
"Jurisdiction" was their way of saying "citizen" as we use the term citizen today.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:47 am to the808bass
quote:Letfists *love* to use "well regulated" as an argument that the government can pass laws to limit gun ownership. But the term "well regulated" at the time meant "disciplined, ordered, and ability to march in ranks"... not the more modern "controlled by congress" meaning.
I have no idea what you mean with that post.
quote:Right. Just like the original intent of the founding fathers wasn't to allow people to own anything more than a musket.
The original intent was not to grant carte blanche birthright citizenship.
If the "intent" of the 14A was X than it should say X. And that's the beauty of our Constitution. We can go fix it (and we should!). But creating an entire class of extra-judicial people with immunity from state laws isn't the way to do it.
quote:Not a single founding father talked about the 1A applying to the internet or broadcasting. I guess it wouldn't apply? It only applies to printing presses. Is that a road you want to go down? I don't.
They said it out loud. You can read about it. I don’t know what else to tell you.
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:"Who did you vote for?"
When SFP is proven right, they respond with ad homs
Posted on 1/22/25 at 8:50 am to Jbird
quote:
This, kill the anchor part of the equation.
What is the anchor part of the equation? What privileges does having US citizen offspring have for non-citizen parents?
Googling shows that it offers no privileges unless the offspring is 21 and can sponsor parents for a green card.
Page 7 of 18
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News