Quote:

---

That's exactly what his point was and Sauer had no answer.

Administration wants a ruling on the 14th amendment. Gorsuch said let's focus on the amendment; here's why you may have problems with the domicile theory. I think this is another indication we just get a ruling on the statute and not the amendment.

---

Well that will be a very ambiguous and messy decision not to mention contrary to centuries old rules of jurisprudence. Then again, the Roberts Court has a tendency to do that. (ObamaCare case: Government says repeatedly it is not a tax, Roberts says that argument is wrong and it is a tax.)

Quote:

---

very ambiguous and messy decision

---

no doubt about that. several concurrences are likely, plus dissents. will be just get a plurality? its not out of the realm of realistic possibility

Quote:

---

not to mention contrary to centuries old rules of jurisprudence.

---

don't agree with this. constitutional avoidance has been the route the court goes for probably one hundred years. this issue can be decided without analyzing the constitutional question. they commonly do that..

now will they do that? who knows! your guess is as good as mine or any of ours. they tend to do whatever they want.

Quote:

---

don't agree with this. constitutional avoidance has been the route the court goes for probably one hundred years. this issue can be decided without analyzing the constitutional question. they commonly do that..

---

While true in general when the exact same words are present in both the amendment and statute? The holding will not actually set the precedent, the dicta surrounding it would. That's the problem going forward, in my view.

Akin to Bush v. Gore. Very narrow ruling on very specific facts unlikely to ever occur again and expressly said it had no precendential value yet the dicta is cited quite often.

Is it possible that the SCOTUS will address certain aspects, such as "birth tourism"? The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, did not even consider air flight. The first marginal flight was in 1903, roughly 50 seconds and 800 feet or less. If the founders had foreseen, air travel, "birth tourism" or mass border crossings, they would have addressed them. Perhaps the SCOTUS will put boundaries or ask Trump to provide considerations. ie, no travel in US past 32 weeks (not sure how you define that). Better yet, codify is as aq fee like Roberts agreed for Obama care... lol.

Insurance companies and schools are in deep financial struggle, as well as SS and medicare. These things are not sustainable.

It turns out the over 100 women from Turkey who flew over to America to have their babies then signed up for Medicaid

So not only did their kids get birthright citizenship but then the American taxpayer had to pay for the procedure and follow up care

End Birthright Citizenship pic.twitter.com/9PtnyFMDhq

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) April 6, 2026

agAngeldad said:

---

Is it possible that the SCOTUS will address certain aspects, such as "birth tourism"? The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, did not even consider air flight. The first marginal flight was in 1903, roughly 50 seconds and 800 feet or less. If the founders had foreseen, air travel, "birth tourism" or mass border crossings, they would have addressed them. Perhaps the SCOTUS will put boundaries or ask Trump to provide considerations. ie, no travel in US past 32 weeks (not sure how you define that). Better yet, codify is as aq fee like Roberts agreed for Obama care... lol.

Insurance companies and schools are in deep financial struggle, as well as SS and medicare. These things are not sustainable.

---

You sounds like liberals when they talk about muskets and the 2nd Amendment.

Bull Meachem said:

---

agAngeldad said:

---

Is it possible that the SCOTUS will address certain aspects, such as "birth tourism"? The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, did not even consider air flight. The first marginal flight was in 1903, roughly 50 seconds and 800 feet or less. If the founders had foreseen, air travel, "birth tourism" or mass border crossings, they would have addressed them. Perhaps the SCOTUS will put boundaries or ask Trump to provide considerations. ie, no travel in US past 32 weeks (not sure how you define that). Better yet, codify is as aq fee like Roberts agreed for Obama care... lol.

Insurance companies and schools are in deep financial struggle, as well as SS and medicare. These things are not sustainable.

---

You sounds like liberals when they talk about muskets and the 2nd Amendment.

---

He sounds like an American. Someone our founding fathers would have had a beer with unlike someone that bends over backwards defending birthright tourism because they interpret the constitution in a *******ized way against its original intent.

One can defend the Constitution and also not condone birth tourism. It's silly to think it's an "either or" discussion.

Bull Meachem said:

---

One can defend the Constitution and also not condone birth tourism. It's silly to think it's an "either or" discussion.

---

So...

Does this mean you support birthright citizenship?

Ag with kids said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

One can defend the Constitution and also not condone birth tourism. It's silly to think it's an "either or" discussion.

---

So...

Does this mean you support birthright citizenship?

---

No, it appears the Constitution does thought. Intent doesn't matter. The wording matters.

Bull Meachem said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

One can defend the Constitution and also not condone birth tourism. It's silly to think it's an "either or" discussion.

---

So...

Does this mean you support birthright citizenship?

---

No, it appears the Constitution does thought. Intent doesn't matter. The wording matters.

---

Tell that to the people that wrote the Federalist Papers and several other supporting documentation that was written to explain the intent of the wording within the Constitution. They wrote that because they knew people were going to *******ize their words.

They had the foresight that people were going to try and twist their words and *******ize the Constitution and they tried to minimize that risk with clear language based on common sense at the time but clearly they overestimated the future populace's will to keep the republic.

Hamilton wrote about the 14th Amendment?

The founders never intended for the type of free speech we have. Do you want to roll it back to what they intended it to be?

will25u said:

---

It turns out the over 100 women from Turkey who flew over to America to have their babies then signed up for Medicaid

So not only did their kids get birthright citizenship but then the American taxpayer had to pay for the procedure and follow up care

End Birthright Citizenship pic.twitter.com/9PtnyFMDhq

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) April 6, 2026

---

Newsflash. Babies born in Texas to illegal immigrant parents remain on Medicaid all the way thru high school/ college. While the rest of us pay for health insurance.

Is anyone here FOR birthright citizenship to all? Put aside the constitutional debate.

If you were asked to create the policy in a new constitution, would anyone want "anyone born here other than children of diplomats and an invading army are citizens"?

Im Gipper said:

---

Is anyone here FOR birthright citizenship to all? Put aside the constitutional debate.

If you were asked to create the policy in a new constitution, would anyone want "anyone born here other than children of diplomats and an invading army are citizens"?

---

Our reslibs and CMs will say they are against it, but their hands are tied. They are, of course, all in favor of it.

Bull Meachem said:

---

Hamilton wrote about the 14th Amendment?

The founders never intended for the type of free speech we have. Do you want to roll it back to what they intended it to be?

---

Now you're just being obtuse. The point is that they can only idiot proof the verbiage so much while maitaining the original intent of the verbiage. But they did try to idiot proof it by including supporting documentation elaborating on the meaning, intent, context, etc.

Whether that same methodology carried forward is up to those in the future, but the founding fathers absolutlely viewed intent of the words to be just as important as the words themselves to prevent people from twisting the meaning away from its origin. Otherwise they would have let the words stand for themselves and not felt the need to provide supporting clarification.

BREAKING - It has now been revealed that a senior Chinese Communist Party member, Guojun Xuan, fathered 26 children through California surrogacy while flaunting that U.S. laws are so weak that one of his children could become President of the United States pic.twitter.com/xmpMaIoqkD

— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) April 10, 2026

As the framers intended, per Democrats.

Raid those Cali based surrogacy companies and seize their records. Find the names of those kids and take them off of every entitlement roll, flag whatever SS#s are associated with them. If they try to return to the US, they are detained and turned away, sending them back from wherever they came in from.