The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
So can congress restrict birthright citizenship or not?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 30th, 2026 11:44 AM Author: vibrant zombie-like selfie roommate Seems ludicrous that they couldn't (or that SCOTUS can't) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971144) |
Date: June 30th, 2026 11:46 AM Author: Spectacular weed whacker market They can but won’t. Both parties want tons of immigrants. Why do you think republicans have so much power and haven’t deported anyone ? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971153) |
 |
Date: June 30th, 2026 11:46 AM Author: vibrant zombie-like selfie roommate They have that's just not true but that's not what I'm asking (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971155) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 11:47 AM Author: Glittery church It doesn't really matter whether they could or whether they can't or whatever.. the fact is that they are not going to restrict immigration in any way unless it's some sort of lip service fashion.. they won't do that because they want to get rich.. the people who own lots of assets really rich people want to keep their money, and the way they keep it is they keep asset prices propped up by increasing consumer demand continually, and the only way to do that is through immigration.. that's why Congress won't support Trump and the things he promised.. because they want to get rich.. and they know that if they go against immigration, the rich people will get poor because asset prices will drop, and then Congress won't get paid in office or out of office by the rich people. It's just that simple it's about money.. it's about money flowing into Congressional pockets.. Congress people want that money and they know it comes from the rich people who own stocks and other assets such as real estate. The prices of these assets are propped up by the Ponzi economy which is propped up by consumer demand which is propped up by immigration.. follow the mother f****** money! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971157) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 11:47 AM Author: peach confused shitlib fanboi Yes, they just have to amend the Constitution (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971158) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 12:03 PM Author: vibrant zombie-like selfie roommate Does anyone know the actual answer to this (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971217) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 12:07 PM Author: Flesh Soul-stirring Electric Furnace Spot You think this is a law board or something? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971227) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 12:26 PM Author: wine stirring brunch It doesn't say either way. SCOTUS decides cases and controversies; they usually avoid dicta about what the outcome would be under difference circumstances.
Reading between the lines, the majority's insisting that the 14th "codified the common law" and all the analysis of other statutes implies that this could be modified by Congress. |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 12:28 PM Author: vibrant zombie-like selfie roommate Why are some posters saying the opposite, that it actually makes it so it's impossible to restrict now (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971274) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 12:38 PM Author: wine stirring brunch Because this stopped being a law board a decade ago.
The opinion was just released like an hour or so ago. I've only had time to skim it so you should take my take with a grain of salt as well (I misquoted a portion of it in another thread).
But anyone who says it's now "impossible" is retarded. It's a 6-3 opinion with Kav writing separately to explicitly saying it could be changed with legislation. I doubt that both Roberts and Barrett would overturn an act of Congress and old that birthright is a constitutional right. And even if they did, it's still one vote away from knowing to a certainty that Congress can legislate here.
Kav (explicitly), Roberts, and Barrett are not going to change the law that has stood for over a century unilaterally. Based on Barretts and Roberts jurisprudence I think they would both uphold a statute, and I'm near certain Barrett would. |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 12:43 PM Author: peach confused shitlib fanboi cr, Congress can just pass a law that says people born in America are not subject to our jurisdiction (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971304) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 12:58 PM Author: wine stirring brunch Funny to see libs become strict textualists now. Do you also believe all laws related to weapons are invalid because the 2nd Amendment says citizens have the right to "bear arms" without qualification? Can I go buy a nuke at Walmart? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971345) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 1:49 PM Author: Purple Bossy Pit Voyeur Explain your reasoning on Roberts and Barrett (Barrett in particular, as she doesn't see herself as the very special CJ who has the Responsibility for the Legacy of the court and to write the opinion). If either wanted to do what you're describing, they could have concurred with Kavanaugh and dinged only this EO. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971410) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 2:16 PM Author: wine stirring brunch I think Barrett and Roberts didn't join with Kav because it veers to close to an advisory opinion. The question before the Court is whether POTUS can do it with an executive order. If they felt it was a constitutional right that required an amendment to change I think they would have been more explicit about that, and writing it the way it is seems to leave the door open for a congressional remedy.
I can't point to anything specific but having read hundreds of their opinions and many interviews, my gut sense is that Barrett would uphold a statute. Roberts I think will go with whatever the five of them do if they agree because he always wants to be in the majority to PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT, i.e. he doesn't want a lot of 5-4 opinions on major issues. But I can't imagine Barrett ever being to the left of him on this.
So, if the statutory case comes up we know already it'll at least be 4 in favor with Kav. If Barrett joins I think Roberts joins to PRESERVE INTEGRITY. And if Barrett doesn't, I think he doesn't for the same reason.
This is all masturbatory because Congress will never pass such a law, and if Congress changes so much that it might the Court will look completely different from the way it does now. Conlaw is all made up, the 14th amendment was ratified before the concept of illegal immigration existed, and all the scholarship surrounding what it means in this context is unserious. If this issue comes before the Court all that will matter is that Court's composition. |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 12:11 PM Author: drab stage yes, the 14th 'amendment' was ludicrous. most of them were either ludicrous or at least terrible ideas (repeal of prohibition, income tax, teen suffrage, women suffrage and many others) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971237) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 12:21 PM Author: peach confused shitlib fanboi Jury trials (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971258) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 1:52 PM Author: Purple Bossy Pit Voyeur (George III) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971421) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 1:10 PM Author: supple forum Brother, the question is whether they need a constitutional amendment to change the law and that's going to be hot. The fact that no one can answer this doesn't speak to our intelligence. Even d couldn't answer this. |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 1:49 PM Author: diverse depressive (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971411) |
|
Date: June 30th, 2026 2:25 PM Author: mind-boggling pungent stag film seems like they can't for at least that one category. and i don't see how they can for any category except the ones already recognized. i think Roberts was wrong and unwise but i don't see any wiggle room left. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878573&forum_id=2Vannesa#49971447) |