Latest Breaking News

bucolic_frolic

(55,232 posts)

2. Weak sauce.

Sun Mar 29, 2026, 05:18 PM

Mar 29

"same status as “the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government”"

Says to me if they were born overseas, they are not US citizens. Nothing remarkable there.

Mr. Wilkins it sounds like the Court argued he was not born in a state, or a territory. He was born with loyalty to his tribe. Splitting hairs. By that logic all immigrants would maintain loyalty to the country from whence they came.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

WizGlick LeftInTX IbogaProject

43 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 Mar 29 OP

Can't wait to hear the arguments before the court. Fiendish Thingy Mar 29 #1

With THIS court? bluestarone Mar 29 #3

My guess, 7-2 against. Nt Fiendish Thingy Mar 29 #8

I know for sure bluestarone Mar 29 #10

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

Weak sauce. bucolic_frolic Mar 29 #2

Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 nullified Elk v Wilkins Historic NY Mar 29 #4

Since the SCOTUS doesn't care about "stare decisis" BumRushDaShow Mar 29 #6

But this isn't stare decicis Fiendish Thingy Mar 29 #9

Have you forgotten BumRushDaShow Mar 29 #11

Haven't forgotten at all Fiendish Thingy Mar 29 #12

"if birthright citizenship is revoked, can the reinstitution of slavery still be off limits?" BumRushDaShow Mar 29 #13

All the more reason why we must only elect Dem senators willing to kill the filibuster and expand the court Fiendish Thingy Mar 29 #15

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

And that horrific ruling will continue to stand Fiendish Thingy Monday #36

That was the hope in 2022 BumRushDaShow Monday #37

That's because Biden wanted to wait on the report from the bipartisan commission on court reform Fiendish Thingy Monday #42

Not exactly. Ms. Toad Mar 29 #17

Birthright citizenship is also a law LeftInTX Mar 29 #23

It is the interpretation of the constitution that is at issue. Ms. Toad Mar 29 #24

I disagree Fiendish Thingy Mar 29 #25

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

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

Two means two, not three Fiendish Thingy Monday #35

Again, you are reducing a paragraph to a single word. Ms. Toad Monday #38

At this time, it's probably a moot point Fiendish Thingy Monday #43

Except that the US constitution does NOT Farmer-Rick Monday #27

Article III of the constitution and Marbury v. Madison. Ms. Toad Monday #39

In that Supreme Court ruling Farmer-Rick Monday #41

I'll see Elk v. Wilkins, cloudbase Mar 29 #5

The funny thing is, Wong Ark was decided in 1898 NickB79 Mar 29 #18

Trump would have required both parents to be wnylib Mar 29 #7

Doesn't seem relevant Renew Deal Mar 29 #14

So at that time territories weren't considered "The US"? Callie1979 Mar 29 #20

That's the way I'm reading it Renew Deal Mar 29 #22

I Think They Are Talking About Indian Territories DallasNE Monday #28

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

What total bullshit. Another argument of convenience. Scalded Nun Mar 29 #16

Sounds like a "3/5ths" argument; seen as lesser individuals. Callie1979 Mar 29 #19

This case in an interpretation that is consistent with how the provision has always been interpreted. Ms. Toad Mar 29 #21

I'm not buying that argument Bayard Mar 29 #26

Call DHS Immediately! Nasruddin Monday #29

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