The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
How will “originalist” J. Thomas justify ruling in favor of Trump on birthri
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 13th, 2025 7:08 PM Author: sepia bat-shit-crazy clown (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48745682) |
 |
Date: March 14th, 2025 11:14 AM Author: Costumed bistre shrine psychic 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: sepia bat-shit-crazy clown (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746863) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 9:38 AM Author: useless electric furnace jap Easy — the Constitution at the time of signing did not contemplate that Article III Courts would be the primary (yet alone sole) interpreter of provisions in the Constitution. That came later when Marbury and its progeny were decided. In 1783, there was absolutely no prohibition on the executive branch interpreting what the constitution says. Therefore, nothing prohibits the president from interpreting the provisions of the 14th Amendment’s grant of birthright citizenship. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746873) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 9:39 AM Author: glittery church cooper v aaron actually (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746877) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 9:45 AM Author: sticky hospital macaca i seem to recall the 14th amendment passing some time after marbury (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746885) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 9:55 AM Author: useless electric furnace jap Unless there’s evidence I’m aware of that the writers of the 14th amendment intended it to grant citizenship to the children of enemy nations illegally living inside our country, then the Executive Branch can interpret that section any way it wants. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746896) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:05 AM Author: sticky hospital macaca 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. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:07 AM Author: Buff dingle berry don't overthink this, ur going back (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746914) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:12 AM Author: Provocative umber library kitty cat (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746930) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:31 AM Author: Transparent Station (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746977) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:36 AM Author: useless electric furnace jap Smells like Marinara sauce in here! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746985) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 9:38 AM Author: Bateful frisky whorehouse He'll dissent, possibly alone, for 200 pages. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746875) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 9:39 AM Author: glittery church lib intellect on full display here, folks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746878) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 9:52 AM Author: cream cracking stock car 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 10:07 AM Author: Buff dingle berry LOL, it's not a difficult issue, the Constitution is very clear.
the only issue is that Cons are sociopaths and can do great levels of mental gymnastics to get their way. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:12 AM Author: Provocative umber library kitty cat It’s insane that we have it because it’s an anomaly and bad policy
But there aren’t great legal arguments against it unfortunately |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:21 AM Author: sticky hospital macaca it's nice to see that the right leaning crowd here become warren court judicial activists when disregarding the clear language of the constitution suits them.
wong kim ark already has various exceptions to birthright citizenship. i think if congress passed ordinary legislation declaring that illegal immigrants are considered enemies and their children are not entitled to birthright citizenship that SCOTUS was uphold that. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:34 AM Author: Provocative umber library kitty cat Yeah I feel like there’s an argument that people who have illegally availed themselves of US jurisdiction shouldn’t get to count (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746981) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:41 AM Author: cream cracking stock car 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 10:45 AM Author: sticky hospital macaca i agree it's bad policy and should be changd. but i don't think scotus should upset 125 year old precedent without any evidence it was wrongly decided in the first place. which is impossible because at the time amendments were frequently ratified and congress could have amended it or passed ordinary legislation if they felt SCOTUS got it wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48747006) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:30 AM Author: cream cracking stock car 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
|
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:10 AM Author: pontificating mind-boggling garrison indirect expression easy, he do whatever dat ghost of Marse Antonin tell him to (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746923) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:11 AM Author: Buff dingle berry no whatever that fat billionaire with jungle fever who spoils him says. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746926) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:26 AM Author: pontificating mind-boggling garrison indirect expression Massah Crow? Oh hee goooood. Let me at dah white womenz on his fine ass jet baby (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746960) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:27 AM Author: glittery church Jfc lol at ‘gunnerratt’ itt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746964) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:39 AM Author: aquamarine mexican corner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48746991) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:48 AM Author: sticky hospital macaca reminds me of when you and all the conlaw mastermen thought SCOTUS would agree Texas can independently enforce its own immigration policy by declaring an insurrection.
i don't like this outcome but it's clearly what the law demands and what the current composition of the court will go with. |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:23 PM Author: .,.,...,.,.;,.,,,:,.,.,::,....,:,..;,.., (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#49495127) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:47 AM Author: Stubborn athletic conference yarmulke *honks RV horn* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48747012) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 11:01 AM Author: pontificating mind-boggling garrison indirect expression (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48747066) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 10:57 AM Author: very tactful becky "subject to jurisdiction thereof" has entered the chat... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48747046) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 11:01 AM Author: sticky hospital macaca illegals aren't subject to our jurisdiction? how can we enforce immigration laws against them than? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48747061) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 11:09 AM Author: Effete pit sex offender Bc they don't listen (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#48747091) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 11:12 AM Author: cream cracking stock car 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: sticky hospital macaca 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. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2025 1:36 PM Author: cream cracking stock car 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: sticky hospital macaca 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. |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:17 PM Author: .,.,...,.,.;,.,,,:,.,.,::,....,:,..;,.., (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#49495109) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:21 PM Author: Junko Enoshima The most straightforward reasoning would be that birthright citizenship is extended to black people only, because the Fourteenth Amendment was emphatically intended to protect the right of freedmen, even if the text is facially race neutral. The conservatives might even be able to peel off Jackson with that argument. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#49495119) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:21 PM Author: Jack in the Green and Merry Christmas! His clerks will say the founders had a “Roman”’concept of citizenship and then look to some fringe scholarship on that subject that contradicts basic understanding even of that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#49495121) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:25 PM Author: "'"'"'"''' ACB will cite constitutio antoniniana and joined by Roberts and the libs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5693825&forum_id=2#49495134) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:24 PM Author: https://i.imgur.com/klfx8zs.jpeg Roberts will write the opinion. Thomas only has to vote in favor (he will).
|