I don’t think it matters whether the word “clarify” was specifically employed or not. It did some clarifyin’ no matter the semantics.[/quote]
What it actually did was legislate. You are suggesting that it was redundant or exegetical in purpose – that Article II Section 1 already included children born to citizens overseas. This is unlikely, particularly from an originalist perspective, given:
– The language itself. It suggests nothing more than the creation of a new statute under which certain people “shall be considered as” something. There is literally no textual indication that those people were that thing before pen met paper for the purposes of the 1790 Naturalization Act …And this is exactly what Blackstone tells us – and told the Framers – about natural born citizenship: that it belongs to children born in-country unless, as had been done on occasion, otherwise specified by statute. Are we to believe that this correspondence is a coincidence? (The SCOTUS has suggested that it was not: see the excerpts in my first post.)
– The deletion of the phrase from the 1795 Naturalization Act. If Congress intended to clarify a pre-existing fact about the intent of Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution, what are we to make of the deletion of the clarification? Or is it instead that the “clarification” was in fact, and per the legal custom of the time, a statutory provision – one subject to creation and excision by the legislature?
The answer to this is pretty clear given what I’ve excerpted from Blackstone. Those born overseas to parents owing not even a residential allegiance to a foreign sovereign – e.g., the children of ambassadors – would seem to be in a similar boat to that of a kid born to a U.S. military man at a base abroad.
But anyway, as I’ve explained, I believe that all of these people are eligible. It’s the dogmatic originalist who shouldn’t.
Here’s my take on last nights debate. I think the big winners, in order were:
Ted Cruz, there is not a smarter person on stage, nor one who had a better command of the issues.
Marco Rubio, loaded with charisma and would beat Hillary by double digits. He showed that last night.
Chris Christie, yes I know he’s fat but he also speaks clearly and gives the impression of leadership.
Trump did nothing to hurt himself and when he defended New York against Cruz’s attack it was his finest moment. Bush had a good night for Bush but he still looks like that awkward kid that you never liked in science class. He has the money to stay in a long time but I sure hope he doesn’t. Kasich has good answers but his delivery just isn’t up to par. Carson had zero impact. But he was much looser and a bit amusing at times.
I didn’t watch all of the early debate. But I did watch enough to see that Carly Fiorina while very smart is also quite annoying. I don’t know if she pulled her interrupting game as she did in her previous debate performances but that is only one thing that annoys me about her. Mike Huckabee would make someone a great Vice Presidential candidate. He is possibly the most eloquent of all the Presidential candidates. And Rick Santorum needs to pack up and go home. He would be a lousy pick for VP as he could not even deliver his home state of PA. If anyone recalls last time he ran for Senator of that state he lost. What is he doing running for President—AGAIN.
I thought to myself, “Will there really be no one to vote for again?”
Trump is like this thing voters have held up because they don’t think they’re (GOP) going to win anyways, so they decided to give a big F you to us all by supporting an “entertaining” reality-TV personality.
And, Cruz, while no doubt intelligent by academic standards and credentials, loves to beat the war drums and promise us how quickly he’ll employ the full force and fury of the US…Because US sailors were on their knees with their hands on their heads…After drifting in to IRAN’S actual waters…Near Iran’s naval base. Nevermind, that the approach we did take resulted in them being released within 24 hours…Was moving closer to war, or expediently getting those men back the priority, Cruz?
Why in the actual hell is the GoP, and its supporters, so hungry for another war? Is this reality? How about focusing on conservative things, and domestic things, instead of some kind of progressive-liberty crusade throughout the damn world. And this isn’t saying the likes of ISIS don’t need to be handled. This is about not starting a war, or almost immediately threatening to, with another nation after OUR military ends up in THEIR territory.
I think you’re underestimating the impact of the last Trump-Cruz exchange. Cruz alienated all of New York and anyone from New York with his “New York Values” statement. There are a lot of delegates in New York and Florida (where a lot of New Yorkers go). I strongly dislike Trump, but he hit a home run with his counter. Someone from Cruz’s campaign said he wasn’t expected the question, which was a MAJOR oversight on his side.
Ya, it was a stumble for Cruz for sure. I still think Bush had the best night. I was talking about this on Facebook, he, IMO, dismantled Trump’s anti-Muslim immigration stance as well as the whole tariff nonsense Trump was spewing.
I still contend Kasich is one of if not the best overall candidate and would, in fact, be the best at actually doing the job. He just doesn’t translate well.
I agree Trump did a good job handling that question. But, Cruz knows that New York will never be won by a republican, at least not by any of the republicans on stage last night. Ronald Reagan did it but that’s another story.
However, those in Iowa probably enjoyed the slam that Cruz put on New York and that is where the first battle will be fought. While Trump did a great job answering Cruz it did not help him in Iowa.
Wrong.
Cruz won that exchange and the only defense Trump could muster was to stand on the backs of 9/11 victims and appeal to emotion based politics. This is a typical liberal defense, and a mainstay of “NY values.”
There is no way Cruz won that exchange. He came off terrible and I haven’t seen a single news outlet or anyone really say Cruz won the exchange. It came off so petty.
Trump did himself very well by harnessing the “I am angry” and saying why instead of letting the labels just be attached. Cruz should have clarified and qualified his statement. New York is intolerably liberal in government make-up. Carson is a good man, but is done. Rubio had some Chutzpah. Bush is very different than his brother, is a good man, but is doomed by his name. Case-itch isn’t getting the respect he deserves.
The debate is a fiasco. In no way is this a debate when there is the circus atmosphere. I think I would rather see each in a sound proof room, all asked the same 5 to 10 questions, and then later when their answers were played for everyone to see they could do the circus, OR limit it to 3.
Why no one just phrases things that will appeal to many is beyond me. Instead of talking taxes, raise or lower, talk about raising tax revenues instead of rates, and how to better and more fairly apply tax rates to all, at a lower rate that will increase tax revenues, AND what to do when there is a finally a true surplus. Not buying bonds.
Trump, if he gets even more press, which he does whenever he says anything, can capture the unmotivated voters and capture some dems who fear the Bern and the unaccomplished anointed pant suit princess. Cruz needs some damage control. Who will give him the platform to elaborate and clarify is unknown.
GOP is down to three. Trump, Cruz and Rubio. I can’t see anyone else being a factor for probably no real reason.
Cruz and his supporters have tried to clarify his statement…but personally, I don’t think it has worked. (Not that it will matter much to his target audience).
He went WAY beyond just “Liberal” and “Conservative”…with a tone that clearly indicated that there were groups of people that were “better” than others, with better overall morals.
What stood out as an irony to me is that there are mostly more “true” Conservatives (just by sheer numbers), in New York and California than there are in Iowa.
He would have been far better off speaking of the governmental POLICIES of States than my attacking people’s character.