- 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: Yall are angry at the wrong people, re: birthright citizenship
Posted on 4/1/26 at 4:21 pm to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 4/1/26 at 4:21 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
That cannot be said definitively.
WKA does a very good historical-textual analysis of this specific issue.
It goes through centuries of common law (which we adopted) and state-based rulings around the concept.
quote:
We know this because it initially was interpreted to exclude Native Americans.
They're an idiosyncratic population.
They're the only people who could both be born within the territory of the US and another country. WKA included the Elk v. Wilkins ruling as the 3rd exception due to stare decisis.
1
Posted on 4/1/26 at 4:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
Stop it. The NA were born here both before and after the DoI, and very much under the jurisdiction of federal law -quite brutally so-, even as there tribal law and identity were recognized at a local level.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 4:32 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Stop it.
You're directing this at me when I'm just accurately telling you the legal status of these arguments based on Supreme Court rulings, and I guided you to read them to understand what I was referencing.
I'm not going to stop properly citing, referencing, and summarizing cases. That would be silly.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 4:33 pm to Oates Mustache
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”
quote:
“The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]”
Mr. HOWARD:
“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
?? This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
The link to the Library of Congress archive will follow.
for those that don't have X you can read the thread here:
https://xcancel.com/pepesgrandma/status/1882095770825834861#m
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 4:38 pm to Oates Mustache
So I’ve been thinking about this all day. If some people believe that anyone born here is a citizen. Would the same people believe that if Americans had a child in another country they would not be granted American citizenship? This could get weird fast
Posted on 4/1/26 at 4:44 pm to Ailsa
Wtf, is that real? Was it not introduced today by Trump's attorneys?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 4:45 pm to Oates Mustache
It's one person, and it's not really persuasive. Other people who participated in the process disagreed. Also most of the court prefers more of a textual analysis, which would ignore that entirely (in part for the reasons I stated at first).
Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:02 pm to Oates Mustache
quote:
Wtf, is that real? Was it not introduced today by Trump's attorneys?
It's in the library of congress...it's real. SCOTUS will not make a decision until June, let's hope they make the right decision.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
You are applying an interpretation. You’re not special.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:34 pm to Oates Mustache
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
Congress has passed numerous laws criminalizing, prohibiting, forbidding and barring the entry of unauthorized and inadmissible foreigners. To say that this same class of excluded foreigners — whose very presence here is a crime — when Congress mandated a physical wall to keep them out — have a legal right to birth American Citizens is the gravest and most preposterous of all constitutional abominations.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:36 pm to Ailsa
Miller's irrationality (emotionality?) is going to give Trump such an embarrassing L
Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It would need to be a constitutional amendment. Legislation can't override the Constitution
Why?
Section 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:39 pm to cssamerican
The 14th originally excluded native Americans and a congressional act undid that exclusion, so there’s that.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It would need to be a constitutional amendment. Legislation can't override the Constitution
LOL.
They continue to “interpret” the 1st and 2nd amendments.
Funny how they feel the 2nd is antiquated and written too long ago to be relevant, but the 14th is a different story
Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:54 pm to cssamerican
quote:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Enforce is not the same thing as limit or redefine.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:What is irrational about that statement?
Miller's irrationality
He points out an obvious truth.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:07 pm to Oates Mustache
quote:
Was it not introduced today by Trump's attorneys?
Discussed within minute 7 of oral arguments
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:17 pm to Oates Mustache
quote:
If people want change, force these idiots in Washington to do something about it.
Call your legislators, chew their ears off, daily. Make your voices heard and listened to.
Yeah but my legislature is a republican. I'm better off getting my dog to speak Mandarin than getting one of those spineless, oxygen thieving pussies to do something productive for this country.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
I'd think the 2nd and 10th amendments laugh at this statement.
The Federal leviathan would be so much smaller if the 10th held any sway.
quote:
Legislation can't override the Constitution
The Federal leviathan would be so much smaller if the 10th held any sway.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:32 pm to Oates Mustache
I hate to say it, but the Constitution and God-given Rights to the religious and economic freedoms therein is toast. It is being used to destroy the very spirit and particular people it was intended to serve. Marxism and Theocratic Islam are incompatible with Constitutional Principles. One or the other will go away. But likely not quietly.
Nothing lasts forever but God.
Nothing lasts forever but God.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News