In principle, I'm fine with that, but I just don't believe it would work. Such a subtle and civilized approach won't change net votes because there aren't enough subtle, civilized voters we don't already have.
I think what's at the heart of the matter is what's so. What, exactly, would we have to "drop," and is mere dropping enough, or would we have to performatively curb-stomp folks? And would it work? No point agreeing to curb-stomp in advance.
Whatever else can be said about North's views, they are relatively nuanced and civilized. But how many Norths are there? Who, exactly, and how many, would accept his terms and vote accordingly?
And we should fight like hell for access to surgery for people over the age of consent and for equal treatment for trans people in government services and treatment.
If we do that, who will be convinced that our throwing the rest under the bus is for real?
Tell some people that annoy the larger electorate that they need to shut up because they’re wrong. Pivot on a policy or two that’s important and that mitigates a D weakness.
Where is the net vote gain here? Loudly throwing some constituents under the bus will surely cost votes that the Democrats already have. What reason is there to think it will change the votes of significant numbers of Republicans, or drag significantly more non-voters out of the woodwork -- especially since it would be so transparently opportunistic?
As I've said elsewhere, the CIA (and the FBI) are intelligence agencies. They may have sources or insights the scientific agencies don't have when it comes to figuring out the internal workings of Chinese labs. And they may not be able to tell us what those sources are. That's what they're good at, but I'm not aware of any particular spycraft basis for their very tentative, low confidence conclusions. If they are going on science rather than spycraft, the science stuff is more within the competence of our science agencies.
What fun is being sensible and not talking about things when you don't know what you're talking about? Don't you see the value in JAQ-ing off or claiming censorship every time somebody publicly raises a non-standard view that, somehow, we've all managed to hear about?
The CIA might have ways of knowing what's going on in Chinese labs that do not depend on scientific inferences from physical evidence -- spycraft. If their opinion is based on spycraft rather than science, it is worth taking seriously even in the face of more scientific evidence that seems to point the other way. But if it is a scientific assessment, rather than spycraft, there is no reason to take the CIA's assessment over that of the science agencies.
There are people whose business it is to do that, and every reason to believe they're working on it. The key is to find things that are net vote gainers, not pet peeves that, if indulged, almost certainly will not gain more votes from people not inclined to vote for Democrats than lose votes from current voters.
It's often overlooked that, with rare exceptions, there was no such thing as an illegal alien back then. The issue of the status of native-born children of this largely non-existent class would not have been front of mind.
No, there wasn't. Even before the 14th Amendment, citizenship under Anglo-American common law was based on jus solis rather than jus sanguinis, i.e., place of birth rather than parentage. There were certain recognized exceptions. If the French Ambassador (or, more likely, his wife) gave birth to a child while posted in England or the United States, that child did not become a citizen of Great Britain or the United States and France would have stoutly objected to any such pretensions on the host nation's part. The Ambassador's kid was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the home country for the same reason the Ambassador wasn't, so didn't become a citizen. Things would be different for a civilian French family living in Cleveland. Their kid, like the civilian French couple, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If the French father mugs a Clevelander, he can be prosecuted for assault. If he fails to pay taxes on the income he earns, the IRS can come after him. He lacks certain privileges or duties of citizenship; he can't vote or be drafted, for example, but in most other respects he is no different from an American citizen.
The 14th Amendment establishes on a constitutional level birthright citizenship, jus solis. To be eligible for birthright citizenship, you need only to be born in the United States, which is a fairly easily ascertained matter, and be subject to its jurisdiction. Obviously, people who enter the United State after they are born do not qualify for birthright citizenship because they weren't born here. Whether they came here legally or illegally is irrelevant; the Constitution makes no such distinction. And once they are here, whether legally or illegally, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- unless they are the French Ambassador. But they can't become citizens unless naturalized.
If you are born in the United States, nothing in the 14th Amendment makes your citizenship turn on the status, legal or otherwise, of your parents. You're born here, full stop. Like your parents, whatever their status (unless they are the French Ambassador), you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. See what happens if you mug someone or don't pay your taxes. So you're a citizen.
That is the plain English meaning of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled more than once that it means what it says. That is the dominant view among legal experts of various political stripes, even some who don't like birthright citizenship as policy.
To be sure, there are a few outliers. There always are. And to be fair, the cases in which the Supreme Court said that the 14th Amendment means what it says did not squarely involve citizenship claims by children of illegal immigrants. They merely laid out principles from which that is the only reasonable conclusion. That leaves an opening for "creative" arguments. Pro tip: whenever an argument starts out: "I know that Smith v. Jones and Brown v. Green laid out rules that, fairly applied, go against us, but those cases weren't exactly the same as this one, so here's some lawyerly-sounding noises about why I should win" is unlikely to be very good. That said, a sufficiently motivated and unprincipled Supreme Court can do what it damn pleases and might buy it. They've done it before.
If someone paid me to do it, I could probably come up with some such lawyerly-sounding noises myself -- possibly a strained analogy to the children of soldiers from invading armies -- but though I am a whore, I would insist on being paid to do this. I don't do bad arguments for free.
Now Jaybird may wonder why I have an opinion on this (informed, if not exactly expert) and not on the 28th Amendment. The answer is simple: in one case I know what I'm talking about and in the other I don't. Birthright citizenship comes up in standard law school Con Law classes (I won the law school prize for Con Law back when people thought it was really law) and I have had work-a-day reasons to learn more in my practice. Neither is true of the 28th Amendment question, though if the question gets litigated that may change. I'm not sure why such an explanation should be necessary, but there it is.
Anybody remember the actual Donald Trump and his own pardon record? Who seriously thinks he needs Biden's example to abuse the pardon power? Or to do something he would not otherwise have done?
Way back almost eight hours ago, I said I had no opinion on the status of the 28th Amendment, hadn't done the work necessary to have a responsible opinion, and wasn't interested in what others had to say about it. We could have left it there, but you've insisted on flushing out views I don't have and don't have any pressing reason to do the considerable work I'd need to do to develop them. I keep trying to explain this, but you seem to think I have some strategic or tactical reason for not doing serious uncompensated legal research on demand. You are the one making requests, and I respectfully decline. I've said, repeatedly, all I have to say. If you want to keep pursuing this, knock yourself out.
I won't address what you think your needs are, but I've told you more than once that I don't know what she said and don't care enough to look. I'm not sure how I can be clearer than that, so, yes, that was a mistake on your part.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
In principle, I'm fine with that, but I just don't believe it would work. Such a subtle and civilized approach won't change net votes because there aren't enough subtle, civilized voters we don't already have.
"
I think what's at the heart of the matter is what's so. What, exactly, would we have to "drop," and is mere dropping enough, or would we have to performatively curb-stomp folks? And would it work? No point agreeing to curb-stomp in advance.
"
Whatever else can be said about North's views, they are relatively nuanced and civilized. But how many Norths are there? Who, exactly, and how many, would accept his terms and vote accordingly?
"
And we should fight like hell for access to surgery for people over the age of consent and for equal treatment for trans people in government services and treatment.
If we do that, who will be convinced that our throwing the rest under the bus is for real?
"
People think Trump just happened. We could probably trace his origins all the way back to Goldwater if we really tried.
Rick Perlstein made a good start.
"
Tell some people that annoy the larger electorate that they need to shut up because they’re wrong. Pivot on a policy or two that’s important and that mitigates a D weakness.
Where is the net vote gain here? Loudly throwing some constituents under the bus will surely cost votes that the Democrats already have. What reason is there to think it will change the votes of significant numbers of Republicans, or drag significantly more non-voters out of the woodwork -- especially since it would be so transparently opportunistic?
"
As I've said elsewhere, the CIA (and the FBI) are intelligence agencies. They may have sources or insights the scientific agencies don't have when it comes to figuring out the internal workings of Chinese labs. And they may not be able to tell us what those sources are. That's what they're good at, but I'm not aware of any particular spycraft basis for their very tentative, low confidence conclusions. If they are going on science rather than spycraft, the science stuff is more within the competence of our science agencies.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
What fun is being sensible and not talking about things when you don't know what you're talking about? Don't you see the value in JAQ-ing off or claiming censorship every time somebody publicly raises a non-standard view that, somehow, we've all managed to hear about?
"
The CIA might have ways of knowing what's going on in Chinese labs that do not depend on scientific inferences from physical evidence -- spycraft. If their opinion is based on spycraft rather than science, it is worth taking seriously even in the face of more scientific evidence that seems to point the other way. But if it is a scientific assessment, rather than spycraft, there is no reason to take the CIA's assessment over that of the science agencies.
"
If you want the "why," the three referenced threads provide it.
"
Almost enough to make one disbelieve in the possibility of progress.
"
There are people whose business it is to do that, and every reason to believe they're working on it. The key is to find things that are net vote gainers, not pet peeves that, if indulged, almost certainly will not gain more votes from people not inclined to vote for Democrats than lose votes from current voters.
"
Setting up his first big loss. Though he'll declare himself the winner regardless.
"
Yes.
"
They have always been around, though often sailing under a false flag.
"
It's often overlooked that, with rare exceptions, there was no such thing as an illegal alien back then. The issue of the status of native-born children of this largely non-existent class would not have been front of mind.
"
We can’t go by what the people who wrote these laws thought they meant
I'm Antonin Scalia.
And I'm Neil Gorsuch.
And we approve this message.
On “Trump Term Two, Day One, Executive Orders”
Maybe he does, and that's why he selected Vance.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
No, there wasn't. Even before the 14th Amendment, citizenship under Anglo-American common law was based on jus solis rather than jus sanguinis, i.e., place of birth rather than parentage. There were certain recognized exceptions. If the French Ambassador (or, more likely, his wife) gave birth to a child while posted in England or the United States, that child did not become a citizen of Great Britain or the United States and France would have stoutly objected to any such pretensions on the host nation's part. The Ambassador's kid was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the home country for the same reason the Ambassador wasn't, so didn't become a citizen. Things would be different for a civilian French family living in Cleveland. Their kid, like the civilian French couple, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If the French father mugs a Clevelander, he can be prosecuted for assault. If he fails to pay taxes on the income he earns, the IRS can come after him. He lacks certain privileges or duties of citizenship; he can't vote or be drafted, for example, but in most other respects he is no different from an American citizen.
The 14th Amendment establishes on a constitutional level birthright citizenship, jus solis. To be eligible for birthright citizenship, you need only to be born in the United States, which is a fairly easily ascertained matter, and be subject to its jurisdiction. Obviously, people who enter the United State after they are born do not qualify for birthright citizenship because they weren't born here. Whether they came here legally or illegally is irrelevant; the Constitution makes no such distinction. And once they are here, whether legally or illegally, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- unless they are the French Ambassador. But they can't become citizens unless naturalized.
If you are born in the United States, nothing in the 14th Amendment makes your citizenship turn on the status, legal or otherwise, of your parents. You're born here, full stop. Like your parents, whatever their status (unless they are the French Ambassador), you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. See what happens if you mug someone or don't pay your taxes. So you're a citizen.
That is the plain English meaning of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled more than once that it means what it says. That is the dominant view among legal experts of various political stripes, even some who don't like birthright citizenship as policy.
To be sure, there are a few outliers. There always are. And to be fair, the cases in which the Supreme Court said that the 14th Amendment means what it says did not squarely involve citizenship claims by children of illegal immigrants. They merely laid out principles from which that is the only reasonable conclusion. That leaves an opening for "creative" arguments. Pro tip: whenever an argument starts out: "I know that Smith v. Jones and Brown v. Green laid out rules that, fairly applied, go against us, but those cases weren't exactly the same as this one, so here's some lawyerly-sounding noises about why I should win" is unlikely to be very good. That said, a sufficiently motivated and unprincipled Supreme Court can do what it damn pleases and might buy it. They've done it before.
If someone paid me to do it, I could probably come up with some such lawyerly-sounding noises myself -- possibly a strained analogy to the children of soldiers from invading armies -- but though I am a whore, I would insist on being paid to do this. I don't do bad arguments for free.
Now Jaybird may wonder why I have an opinion on this (informed, if not exactly expert) and not on the 28th Amendment. The answer is simple: in one case I know what I'm talking about and in the other I don't. Birthright citizenship comes up in standard law school Con Law classes (I won the law school prize for Con Law back when people thought it was really law) and I have had work-a-day reasons to learn more in my practice. Neither is true of the 28th Amendment question, though if the question gets litigated that may change. I'm not sure why such an explanation should be necessary, but there it is.
"
Anybody remember the actual Donald Trump and his own pardon record? Who seriously thinks he needs Biden's example to abuse the pardon power? Or to do something he would not otherwise have done?
"
Lack of detail versus outright wrong. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
"
Already did. See above.
On “President Biden Affirms the Passage of the ERA”
Way back almost eight hours ago, I said I had no opinion on the status of the 28th Amendment, hadn't done the work necessary to have a responsible opinion, and wasn't interested in what others had to say about it. We could have left it there, but you've insisted on flushing out views I don't have and don't have any pressing reason to do the considerable work I'd need to do to develop them. I keep trying to explain this, but you seem to think I have some strategic or tactical reason for not doing serious uncompensated legal research on demand. You are the one making requests, and I respectfully decline. I've said, repeatedly, all I have to say. If you want to keep pursuing this, knock yourself out.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
With whom would I make such a trade, if I were so inclined?
On “President Biden Affirms the Passage of the ERA”
I won't address what you think your needs are, but I've told you more than once that I don't know what she said and don't care enough to look. I'm not sure how I can be clearer than that, so, yes, that was a mistake on your part.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.