Latest Breaking News

Historic NY

(40,029 posts)

4. Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 nullified Elk v Wilkins

Sun Mar 29, 2026, 05:51 PM

Yesterday

I Congress passed this act, also known as the Snyder Act, granting full U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States, effectively nullifying the requirement for individual naturalization that was central to Elk v. Wilkins.

https://www.opb.org/article/2025/04/07/trump-administration-attempts-to-use-19th-century-native-american-case-to-overturn-birthright-citizenship/]

Trump has that fuck face Miller working on this bullshit only he would pull this out of his rectum

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

Spazito Deuxcents boonecreek Dixc Hekate radical noodle sheshe2 dave99 Klondike Kat dexdah IbogaProject LovelyStuff PufPuf23 Lasher oasis MisterG A Badger

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 Yesterday OP

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 Yesterday #10

Wow, had not seen your response but mine was exactly the same..."With this court?" Escurumbele 16 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 Yesterday #11

Haven't forgotten at all Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #12

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

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

Roe was focused on enforcement of the PRIVATE right for women to choose what to do with her own body BumRushDaShow 18 hrs ago #30

And that horrific ruling will continue to stand Fiendish Thingy 13 hrs ago #36

That was the hope in 2022 BumRushDaShow 13 hrs ago #37

That's because Biden wanted to wait on the report from the bipartisan commission on court reform Fiendish Thingy 11 hrs ago #42

Not exactly. Ms. Toad Yesterday #17

Birthright citizenship is also a law LeftInTX Yesterday #23

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

I disagree Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #25

"If the constitution says two term limit for a president, it doesn't mean three" BumRushDaShow 15 hrs ago #33

But the Constitution doesn't say two terms for a p president. Ms. Toad 15 hrs ago #34

Two means two, not three Fiendish Thingy 14 hrs ago #35

Again, you are reducing a paragraph to a single word. Ms. Toad 12 hrs ago #38

At this time, it's probably a moot point Fiendish Thingy 11 hrs ago #43

Except that the US constitution does NOT Farmer-Rick 23 hrs ago #27

Article III of the constitution and Marbury v. Madison. Ms. Toad 12 hrs ago #39

In that Supreme Court ruling Farmer-Rick 12 hrs ago #41

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

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

Trump would have required both parents to be wnylib Yesterday #7

Doesn't seem relevant Renew Deal Yesterday #14

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

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

I Think They Are Talking About Indian Territories DallasNE 23 hrs ago #28

If thats the story then it would seem to have zero meaning to today's case. Callie1979 17 hrs ago #31

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

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

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

I'm not buying that argument Bayard Yesterday #26

Call DHS Immediately! Nasruddin 21 hrs ago #29

pedo and his henchmen should move to Tx or Fl and let the rest of us get our country back Marthe48 12 hrs ago #40