Latest Breaking News

Callie1979

(1,349 posts)

31. If thats the story then it would seem to have zero meaning to today's case.

Reply to DallasNE (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 30, 2026, 06:25 AM

5 hrs ago

The people referred to NOW are born in one of the States, I guess this guy was born in a territory and NOT a State.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Looking to limit birthright citizenship, Trump turns to an 1884 Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man [View all] BumRushDaShow 19 hrs ago OP

Can't wait to hear the arguments before the court. Fiendish Thingy 18 hrs ago #1

With THIS court? bluestarone 18 hrs ago #3

My guess, 7-2 against. Nt Fiendish Thingy 16 hrs ago #8

I know for sure bluestarone 16 hrs ago #10

Wow, had not seen your response but mine was exactly the same..."With this court?" Escurumbele 4 hrs ago #32

Weak sauce. bucolic_frolic 18 hrs ago #2

Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 nullified Elk v Wilkins Historic NY 18 hrs ago #4

Since the SCOTUS doesn't care about "stare decisis" BumRushDaShow 17 hrs ago #6

But this isn't stare decicis Fiendish Thingy 16 hrs ago #9

Have you forgotten BumRushDaShow 16 hrs ago #11

Haven't forgotten at all Fiendish Thingy 16 hrs ago #12

"if birthright citizenship is revoked, can the reinstitution of slavery still be off limits?" BumRushDaShow 15 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 15 hrs ago #15

Roe was focused on enforcement of the PRIVATE right for women to choose what to do with her own body BumRushDaShow 6 hrs ago #30

And that horrific ruling will continue to stand Fiendish Thingy 2 hrs ago #36

That was the hope in 2022 BumRushDaShow 1 hr ago #37

Not exactly. Ms. Toad 14 hrs ago #17

Birthright citizenship is also a law LeftInTX 13 hrs ago #23

It is the interpretation of the constitution that is at issue. Ms. Toad 13 hrs ago #24

I disagree Fiendish Thingy 13 hrs ago #25

"If the constitution says two term limit for a president, it doesn't mean three" BumRushDaShow 3 hrs ago #33

But the Constitution doesn't say two terms for a p president. Ms. Toad 3 hrs ago #34

Two means two, not three Fiendish Thingy 2 hrs ago #35

Again, you are reducing a paragraph to a single word. Ms. Toad 43 min ago #38

Except that the US constitution does NOT Farmer-Rick 11 hrs ago #27

Article III of the constitution and Marbury v. Madison. Ms. Toad 32 min ago #39

In that Supreme Court ruling Farmer-Rick 13 min ago #41

I'll see Elk v. Wilkins, cloudbase 17 hrs ago #5

The funny thing is, Wong Ark was decided in 1898 NickB79 14 hrs ago #18

Trump would have required both parents to be wnylib 16 hrs ago #7

Doesn't seem relevant Renew Deal 15 hrs ago #14

So at that time territories weren't considered "The US"? Callie1979 14 hrs ago #20

That's the way I'm reading it Renew Deal 14 hrs ago #22

I Think They Are Talking About Indian Territories DallasNE 11 hrs ago #28

If thats the story then it would seem to have zero meaning to today's case. Callie1979 5 hrs ago #31

What total bullshit. Another argument of convenience. Scalded Nun 15 hrs ago #16

Sounds like a "3/5ths" argument; seen as lesser individuals. Callie1979 14 hrs ago #19

This case in an interpretation that is consistent with how the provision has always been interpreted. Ms. Toad 14 hrs ago #21

I'm not buying that argument Bayard 12 hrs ago #26

Call DHS Immediately! Nasruddin 9 hrs ago #29

pedo and his henchmen should move to Tx or Fl and let the rest of us get our country back Marthe48 18 min ago #40