How will “originalist” J. Thomas justify ruling in favor of Trump on birthri
| ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,. | 03/13/25 | | ....,.,.;;;,.,,:,.,.,::,...,..,:,..,.. | 03/14/25 | | ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,. | 03/14/25 | | MERS-Covid-25 | 03/14/25 | | UN peacekeeper | 03/14/25 | | A Prince of Spice | 03/14/25 | | MERS-Covid-25 | 03/14/25 | | A Prince of Spice | 03/14/25 | | """'"'"""'' | 03/14/25 | | the dissident right | 03/14/25 | | dont run libs the crystal wardens see you | 03/14/25 | | MERS-Covid-25 | 03/14/25 | | lfo | 03/14/25 | | UN peacekeeper | 03/14/25 | | ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | 03/14/25 | | """'"'"""'' | 03/14/25 | | the dissident right | 03/14/25 | | A Prince of Spice | 03/14/25 | | the dissident right | 03/14/25 | | ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | 03/14/25 | | A Prince of Spice | 03/14/25 | | ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | 03/14/25 | | Long Red Poon Tie Covering Your Wang | 03/14/25 | | """'"'"""'' | 03/14/25 | | Long Red Poon Tie Covering Your Wang | 03/14/25 | | UN peacekeeper | 03/14/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/14/25 | | A Prince of Spice | 03/14/25 | | .,..,,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,..,.., | 03/14/25 | | Long Red Poon Tie Covering Your Wang | 03/14/25 | | barnabyjones | 03/14/25 | | A Prince of Spice | 03/14/25 | | hours-hungry BILLPIG | 03/14/25 | | ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | 03/14/25 | | A Prince of Spice | 03/14/25 | | ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | 03/14/25 | | A Prince of Spice | 03/14/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 13th, 2025 7:08 PM
Author: ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48745682) |
 |
Date: March 14th, 2025 11:14 AM
Author: ....,.,.;;;,.,,:,.,.,::,...,..,:,..,..
stfu you mentally retarded jewish pedo dork
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48747099) |
Date: March 14th, 2025 9:35 AM
Author: ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746863) |
 |
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:05 AM Author: A Prince of Spice (gunneratttt)
it cannot (see marbury v madison).
seeing as congress did not amend the constitution after marbury to permit other branches to interpret the constitution, i find it very unlikely that the drafter's of the 14th intended for it to be interpreted by other branches, or the constitution generally. also wong kim ark decided this issue 127 years ago.
if you seriously think the court is going to overturn marbury and allow the executive and judicial branches to interpret the constitution separately you're insane. if anything they would just overturn wong kim ark. they're not going to overturn marbury you lunantic. obviously marbury is the correct interpretation of the judicial branch's role and the constitution drafters intent considering, you know, most of the drafters were alive in 1803 and the author john marshall pushed for virginia to ratify the constitution.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746911) |
Date: March 14th, 2025 9:52 AM
Author: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
we had a long thread with lots of links to the best arguments on both sides. it's a surprisingly difficult issue. for the argument that Congress can regulate citizenship for children of parents not here legally, read up on some of Peter Schuck's work.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746893) |
 |
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:41 AM
Author: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
https://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/seven-one/consent.pdf
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746999) |
 |
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:30 AM
Author: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5669150&mc=101&forum_id=2#48584752
https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5669150&mc=101&forum_id=2#48584764
https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5669150&mc=101&forum_id=2#48594360
https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5669150&mc=101&forum_id=2#48597854
https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5669150&mc=101&forum_id=2#48631950
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746975)
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:47 AM
Author: .,..,,.,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,..,..,
*honks RV horn*
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48747012) |
 |
Date: March 14th, 2025 11:12 AM
Author: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers, as well as Native Americans, are subject to our jurisdiction when on our soil yet are not "subject to jurisdiction" in the meaning of that phrase.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48747095) |
 |
Date: March 14th, 2025 11:32 AM Author: A Prince of Spice (gunneratttt)
yes but there are specific statutes for native americans and diplomats outlining the carve outs for their jurisdiction that includes this. the enemy combatant one is an obvious exception. and there's nothing in the immigration code that carves this it out. that's why i think it's unlikely that scotus will overturn a longstanding precedent, but might without a constitutional amendment with ordinary legislation.
i do think it's possible and reasonable for the court include illegals under the foreign soldier exception. however i doubt it'll happen with the current composition. it would be penumbraing the 14th as the text and precedent pretty plainly supports birthright.
i wish the gop would just get rid of the filibuster and pass legislation. the real root of the issue, and most others, is that congress isn't functional, leaving us to rely on the executive and judicial branches to exercise powers they don't have.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48747152) |
 |
Date: March 14th, 2025 1:36 PM
Author: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
you make a bunch of good points and i don't disagree too deeply, but the statute for Indians was in 1920, right? in other words, the contemporaneous understanding was that under the amendment as written (and without the help of statutes, etc.) Native Americans, kids of diplomats, etc., simply didn't get BRC. so, if that's true, i don't see why Congress can't act as to children of two illegal aliens.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48747436) |
 |
Date: March 14th, 2025 1:42 PM Author: A Prince of Spice (gunneratttt)
no i'm agreeing that i think scotus would agree that congress could act through ordinary legislation here.
the big difference is that during that time illegal immigration and citizenship was less of an issue and also congress was more responsive in changing the law for modern issues. it's hard to think of a real judicial reason for SCOTUS to reverse course here if they are just supposed to be interpreting the law. nothing in the law has changed and if you're a textualist it's hard to ignore the plain language.
anyway, guess we'll see how it shakes out. i would certainly be happy with the policy of ending birthright. i just worry about opening pandora's box with our own version of penumbraing the constitution to get a result we want. otoh maybe i'm being a lost causer. after all, i think a lot of trump's EO shit is unconstitutional but i'm fine with that because at least he's elected and has a mandate from the people to do it. the people *do* want to eliminate BRC and it's a fucking stupid policy.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48747454) |
|
|