Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Scalded Nun

(1,690 posts)
16. What total bullshit. Another argument of convenience.
Sun Mar 29, 2026, 09:04 PM
22 hrs ago

The treatment of Native Americans by the US government (and to be truthful a huge segment of its population) has been forever disgraceful. This appears to be another case of a convenience to get what they want.

The argument "the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government" cannot be used as the tribal lands have always been within the domain of the US government. You cannot have it both ways. One one hand saying their land is sovereign and on the other hand move tribes and/or take whatever land the government wants for whatever reason the government has. Many times at the behest of corporations who want that land for various (many times deceitful/nefarious) reasons.

And legally...
If those fucking, disgusting, treasonous idiots in the White house want to refer back to 1884, they need go no further than to The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Any rationale relying on the 1884 SCOTUS ruling was nullified by that Act.

They may very well be counting on Alito to pull another 400 year-old reference out of his ass to save them. Pardon the exaggeration on the 400 years.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Can't wait to hear the arguments before the court. Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #1
With THIS court? bluestarone Yesterday #3
My guess, 7-2 against. Nt Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #8
I know for sure bluestarone 23 hrs ago #10
Wow, had not seen your response but mine was exactly the same..."With this court?" Escurumbele 12 hrs ago #32
Weak sauce. bucolic_frolic Yesterday #2
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 nullified Elk v Wilkins Historic NY Yesterday #4
Since the SCOTUS doesn't care about "stare decisis" BumRushDaShow Yesterday #6
But this isn't stare decicis Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #9
Have you forgotten BumRushDaShow 23 hrs ago #11
Haven't forgotten at all Fiendish Thingy 23 hrs ago #12
"if birthright citizenship is revoked, can the reinstitution of slavery still be off limits?" BumRushDaShow 23 hrs ago #13
All the more reason why we must only elect Dem senators willing to kill the filibuster and expand the court Fiendish Thingy 23 hrs ago #15
Roe was focused on enforcement of the PRIVATE right for women to choose what to do with her own body BumRushDaShow 14 hrs ago #30
And that horrific ruling will continue to stand Fiendish Thingy 9 hrs ago #36
That was the hope in 2022 BumRushDaShow 8 hrs ago #37
That's because Biden wanted to wait on the report from the bipartisan commission on court reform Fiendish Thingy 7 hrs ago #42
Not exactly. Ms. Toad 22 hrs ago #17
Birthright citizenship is also a law LeftInTX 21 hrs ago #23
It is the interpretation of the constitution that is at issue. Ms. Toad 21 hrs ago #24
I disagree Fiendish Thingy 20 hrs ago #25
"If the constitution says two term limit for a president, it doesn't mean three" BumRushDaShow 11 hrs ago #33
But the Constitution doesn't say two terms for a p president. Ms. Toad 10 hrs ago #34
Two means two, not three Fiendish Thingy 10 hrs ago #35
Again, you are reducing a paragraph to a single word. Ms. Toad 8 hrs ago #38
At this time, it's probably a moot point Fiendish Thingy 7 hrs ago #43
Except that the US constitution does NOT Farmer-Rick 19 hrs ago #27
Article III of the constitution and Marbury v. Madison. Ms. Toad 8 hrs ago #39
In that Supreme Court ruling Farmer-Rick 7 hrs ago #41
I'll see Elk v. Wilkins, cloudbase Yesterday #5
The funny thing is, Wong Ark was decided in 1898 NickB79 22 hrs ago #18
Trump would have required both parents to be wnylib Yesterday #7
Doesn't seem relevant Renew Deal 23 hrs ago #14
So at that time territories weren't considered "The US"? Callie1979 22 hrs ago #20
That's the way I'm reading it Renew Deal 21 hrs ago #22
I Think They Are Talking About Indian Territories DallasNE 19 hrs ago #28
If thats the story then it would seem to have zero meaning to today's case. Callie1979 13 hrs ago #31
What total bullshit. Another argument of convenience. Scalded Nun 22 hrs ago #16
Sounds like a "3/5ths" argument; seen as lesser individuals. Callie1979 22 hrs ago #19
This case in an interpretation that is consistent with how the provision has always been interpreted. Ms. Toad 21 hrs ago #21
I'm not buying that argument Bayard 20 hrs ago #26
Call DHS Immediately! Nasruddin 17 hrs ago #29
pedo and his henchmen should move to Tx or Fl and let the rest of us get our country back Marthe48 7 hrs ago #40
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Looking to limit birthrig...»Reply #16