Balkinization  

Tuesday, March 08, 2016

A Law Unto Itself

Gerard N. Magliocca

I think that there is a significant misunderstanding in the works about how party conventions function when they are actually called upon to choose a national ticket.  Some of the commentary is treating this as nothing more than a Nate Silver-esque number crunching formula.  At the end of the caucuses and primaries, so this argument goes, each remaining candidate will have a certain number of pledged delegates.  This tally is something that can be tracked and assessed as you go along and we will know the final result.  Not necessarily true.

Consider that party conventions were conceived as the political equivalents of constitutional drafting or ratifying conventions--an irregular body that was the highest lawmaking authority.  Although this aspect of the party conventions has lain dormant for decades, dormant does not mean extinct.  As I pointed out in an earlier post, delegate credentials can be challenged, the voting rules can be changed,  certain candidates can be excluded from being placed in nomination, and the convention is the final authority on these matters (though the losers may try to sue afterwards).

Here's an example where this power might matter.  Suppose that one of the winner-take-all primaries (say in Florida or Ohio) results in a very close result that is subject to an election contest.  While state courts might weigh in on that dispute (depending on what the relevant state statutes say on election contests), the Republican National Convention can decide for itself who won.  Thus, we may end up in a situation where two Florida delegations (one for Trump and one for Rubio) arrive in Cleveland, and neither will be able to cast votes until the "real" one is selected by the convention. 


Comments:

So you're recommending that the Convention play the role of the Supreme Court in Bush v Gore? I can't see this ending well.
 

Bush v. Gore occurred when there was a paper thin difference of official votes in Florida. Rubio's chances are bad enough that chatter is out there that some advisers are telling him to drop out NOW. That "suppose" hypo is at this moment just that.

Comparing conventions to the "highest lawmaking authority" also seems, at least these days, as somewhat inexact though maybe not to those very cynical about D.C.
 

"the Convention play the role of the Supreme Court in Bush v Gore"

Who's playing the role of Scalia?
 

It's the Republican Convention -- his votes count even after he's dead.
 

I presume Gerard is talking about a contested convention where no candidate has a majority of committed delegates.

It is doubtful that the rules committee of the GOP national convention will screw with committed delegates. There will probably be some credentials fights on the periphery, but no wholesale disqualifications.

The main battle will be over uncommitted delegates Very possibly, the uncommitted can provide one or more candidates with enough votes to gain a majority on the first ballot. See the 1976 GOP convention. If the delegates do not choose a nominee in the first round or two of voting, most of the committed delegates will be released to vote as they wish.

Keep an eye on the Rules Committee. There is convention rule barring any candidate without at least eight (I believe) state victories by a majority of the vote from being included in a nominating vote. Noe of the candidates comes close to meeting this requirement. If 3-4 candidates stay in the race, none may meet this requirement by the convention. In order to have a nomination vote, the Rules Committee would have to change this requirement. Will they adopt a standard which would exclude some active candidates? Will these rule changes require a floor vote? Will the excluded candidate's delegates be released immediately or remain committed until after a certain number of ballots?

Things could get very interesting.
 

Hammering Trump over the past couple weeks is substantially reducing his support:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-cruz-locked-tight-race-nationally-new-poll-n534171

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-trump-leads-gop-race-nationally-but-with-weaker-hold-on-the-party/2016/03/07/890cc8d0-e496-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html

Why on Earth did the Republicans wait so long to out this RINO???


 

Why on Earth did the Republicans wait so long to out this RINO???


# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 5:39 PM


They don't want to lose all his racist supporters.

 

Bart DePalma the other day: "It is becoming increasingly clear that both the libertarian conservative and establishment wings of the party are moving hard against Trump and the fix is in."

These poll numbers are looking great for Rafael Cruz (R-Calgary)!

"Why on Earth did the Republicans wait so long to out this RINO???"

Trump has won more states than all the other GOP field COMBINED. Republican in Name Only, or Republican's top choice?
 

Trump winning Mississippi and Michigan ... the "anybody but Trump" strategy not going to plan with Cruz and Kasich splitting that in Michigan. The Rubio scenario looking less likely as I type but he assures us he will win Florida. So, you never know.

Other than Texas, Trump continues winning as many states in the Old Confederacy as Jefferson Davis. Then, he was a Democrat.
 

Mr: W:

Cruz's numbers are looking fine.

Despite two other candidates siphoning off the non-Trump vote, another first and three seconds with a total delegate gain right behind Trump.

If Rubio and Kasich were out, the Michigan exit polls suggested that Cruz would have won that state easily against Trump yesterday.

Rubio and Kasich need to suspend their campaigns now and let Cruz run the table.
 

Mr. W: Trump has won more states than all the other GOP field COMBINED. Republican in Name Only, or Republican's top choice?

Trump is winning about 2/3 of the states with pluralities which are being swelled with Indi and Democrat votes.

These pluralities are also his ceiling. All the remaining GOP candidates easily beat Trump in one on one polling.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-cruz-locked-tight-race-nationally-new-poll-n534171


 

Cruz picked up another state but the night finished with Trump winning three of four and getting second place in the fourth. And, this in a slate of states that on paper look quite favorable to Cruz (the old Confederacy especially) with various states left (NY and the surrounding areas especially) that on paper would favor Trump left.

Rubio wants to at least be there when his home state votes. It would strategically be good if Cruz throws him the bone, but seems like he wants to contest Florida. Trump is far ahead in the polls now. That won't help stopping him from winning a plurality. But, I guess given Rubio's poll numbers, Cruz figures Rubio has a low chance to win Florida anyhow, so the best best is to just knock him out totally & hope for a surprise win. Still, that Rubio scenario in the OP is growing less likely.

The final Maginot Line (14%) is California. Trump is at 44% now.
 

For those who want to follow along at home: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html

(44% of delegates chosen, something like 70 delegates unbound; the party might be wishing they had superdelegates)
 

It's funny that Bart was recently castigating 'Democrat media polling' and talking up how faulty it is, but when it suits him he cites them.

More importantly, it doesn't matter what Cruz would do in a one on one race, that's not the race that exists. In the race that actually exists Cruz has seen Trump whup him more than an angry drunken step dad whoops his red headed step child.
 

Since this is a legal blog, here's something more on topic that interested me:

"Bernie Sanders' campaign on Tuesday sued Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, accusing the Republican of quietly changing a law in an effort to block 17-year-olds from voting in the state's presidential primary next week...But Husted said Tuesday that there has been no change -- 17-year-olds who turn 18 by Election Day in November have always been allowed to vote in direct nominations (such as Ohio's Senate primary) but barred from voting for delegates in the presidential primary."


http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/politics/bernie-sanders-lawsuit-ohio-teenage-voters/index.html

I thought that freedom of association would allow the parties to define who can participate in their own primaries (Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut). Anyone else's thoughts?
 

From the last post:
"But the rules in place are not necessarily the rules that will govern the convention. The Convention can adopt its own rules. This is why in the days of yore, the election of the Convention Chair was crucial because that person made all of the initial rulings (subject to being overruled by a floor vote). Likewise, there can be challenges to delegate credentials on the floor."

Doesn't this suggest an infinite loop problem? Who gets to vote on the election of the Convention Chair and rules to resolve credential disputes before the credential disputes are resolved?
 

Mr. W:

Trump and Cruz have earned about the same number of delegates since Super Tuesday. Trump's narrow lead is from the SC winner take all.

The Democrat media polling has been under-projecting Cruz in almost every state. If that polling repeatedly finds that Cruz beats Trump one-on-one, then it likely means that Cruz would thrash Trump one-on-one.

Rubio and Kasich need to get out of the race now and end Trump's campaign.
 

The opinion still recognizes that a primary election is not merely a 'private' association voting. Thus, e.g., the parties cannot bar people of a certain race or religion from voting. Cf. Boy Scouts v. Dale (moral/religious rules can bar membership/leadership choices).

The regulation in that case was deemed not having a compelling state interest. A neutral age requirement would to provide mature enough voters; the policy here itself was limited -- people who turned 18 in November could vote. So, Sanders' is making a more limited argument, looking over the complaint.

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Bernie2016vHusted.pdf

"national rules will be set by a panel of 112 party officials – two from each state and territory – who will have the power to change the rules just days before the convention, potentially making or breaking the presidential aspirations of candidates who fell short"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/contested-republican-national-convention-work/story?id=37003821

How these people are chosen sounds complicated. A lot of inside baseball.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

The establishment may be pushing Rubio out before FL.

Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) tweeted at 9:59am - 9 Mar 16:

Top @marcorubio donors say barring a positive poll, the Senator will suspend his campaign prior to the Fla primary.


https://twitter.com/CGasparino/status/707623010895843329?s=17
 

joe, thanks for the link on Bernie's lawsuit, upon reading it I think he's got a good case.
 

I wish to break my temporary silence to bring to the attention of we, the usual suspects, Thomas B. Edsall's NYTimes column earlier this week "Donald Trump, the Winning Wild Card." Trump's highjacking of the GOP debates has desprived all Americans, of all parties, of meaningful discussions of national issues/concerns in a worl with many problems, that may impact America's role as a world leader economically, militarily and politically. And it seems obvious to me that much of the political climate in America relates to the changing demographics. I do not have any idea whom the Republicans will nominate. Nor would I suggest who should be the nominee of Democrats. But all of America is faced with the issues of the changing demographics. The Reconstruction Amendments did not fully resolve the issues of race and discrimination they addressed. Since Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (1954), issues of race continued to fester. This brings us to the current political divide over the changing demographics. Is there a plan, politically, to specifically address the changing demographics? If so, I have no idea what it may be. Such a plan, if it exists, is not being openly discussed during these 2016 presidential debates. So Trump has made America the loser with the base he has attracted. I have no suggested solutions. But I don't understand how some might wish to bring about a change in the changing demographics. It's a dangerous world and America's leadership role is being seriously challenged. Americans should be pulling together instead of bein torn apart. I think back to the 1968 presidential campaign that I lived through as an adult, with Richard Nixon closely beating Hubert Humphrey. Nixon did not ruin America, but he came close. Trump in 2016 is a much wilder card than was Nixon back in 1968. The Republican Party might fracture. But this may not benefit Americans as America may be challenged in its world leadership role. Trump has robbed Americans of meaningful political debate with his highjacking of the Republican Party, which has tainted his Republican competitors.
 

Shag: Such a plan, if it exists, is not being openly discussed during these 2016 presidential debates.

If by "changing demographics," you mean illegal immigration, both parties' debates frequently discuss the subject.

Last night on Univision, both Sanders and Clinton openly said they have no intention of enforcing the immigration laws and deporting undocumented Democrats, er... illegal aliens without a criminal record (and probably not even them). They also support citizenship, welfare and voting registration cards for illegals who have been here for some unspecified period of time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democratic-debate-deporting-children_us_56e0e3ebe4b065e2e3d4d907

Rubio has shifted from full amnesty to undefined amnesty after "securing the borders." This is the Chamber of Commerce position so they can keep the flow of cheap labor to their members.

Cruz repeatedly says that he will enforce the law as written and told some DREAMER illegal alien activist to her face at a campaign stop that he would deport her.

Trump is claiming that he will wall off the United States and make Mexico pay for it, with an exception presumably for the illegal aliens his businesses employ.

Any candidate advocating for unrestricted illegal immigration is going to lose most of the working class vote of all races. The Democrats do not understand the level of resentment in a massively under and unemployed working class against American businesses hiring cheap foreign labor to replace their lower skilled American workforce. If you want to piss them off even more, call them racists for their opposition. This is what Trump has tapped into.
 

"Trump's highjacking of the GOP debates has desprived all Americans, of all parties, of meaningful discussions of national issues/concerns in a worl with many problems, that may impact America's role as a world leader economically, militarily and politically."

On the contrary. It has been Trump's major contribution to the process, that we are finally having meaningful discussions of concerns both party's establishments were determined not to permit any debate about.
 

On the contrary. It has been Trump's major contribution to the process, that we are finally having meaningful discussions of concerns both party's establishments were determined not to permit any debate about.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 9:30 AM


Brett, saying that Mexicans are rapists and he's going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it isn't a meaningful discussion of concerns.
 

The "changing demographics" relate to changes in voting by eligible voters over the past several years, plus legals eligible to become citizens, NOT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. The "changing demographics" relate to the the decrease proportionately in white voters. Illegal immigration is a separate issue that has to be addressed seriously.

In some other threads at this Blog on what might be addressed at a constitutional convention, I posed the question as to how SPAM I AM! and Brett might have such a convention address the issue of the "changing demographics." Neither took the bait. The 2016 Republican debates have not addressed what might be done to to change the "changing demographics."
 

Shag:

Actual eligable voter demographics have not changed significantly. The contrast between majority and minority turnout in elections with and without Obama account for most of the recent variability.
 

Actual eligable voter demographics have not changed significantly.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:26 AM


Now we get to see how Blankshot defines "significantly". If nothing else I'm sure it will be comical.
 

Check out The Wall Street Journal's "A Daunting Demographic Challenge for the GOP in 2016:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/whit-ayres-a-daunting-demographic-challenge-for-the-gop-in-2016-1425513162
 

Blankshot, in 1980 Saint Ronnie got 56% of the white vote. He won the electoral college 489 to 49. In 2012 Mittens won 59% of the white vote. He lost. Not as bad as Carter lost, but it still was not close. Yes, the demographics have changed significantly.
 

"Brett, saying that Mexicans are rapists and he's going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it isn't a meaningful discussion of concerns."

Nobody said the former, and the latter actually IS a meaningful proposal, as remitances to Mexico from the US are quite a bit larger than the cost of the wall, we could make Mexico pay for it by taxing them.
 

Nobody said the former, and the latter actually IS a meaningful proposal, as remitances to Mexico from the US are quite a bit larger than the cost of the wall, we could make Mexico pay for it by taxing them.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 12:48 PM


I'm pretty sure I watched him call Mexicans rapists. Good luck taxing people who are under threat of deportation if they are caught!
 

Delusional people are frequently pretty sure. At worst, Trump called illegal immigrants rapists. Even with our borders thrown open, most Mexicans aren't illegal immigrants; They're still in Mexico!

And good luck sending a wire transfer to Mexico via a publically regulated bank without it being taxed, if such a tax is enacted.
 

And good luck sending a wire transfer to Mexico via a publically regulated bank without it being taxed, if such a tax is enacted.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 1:46 PM


That will be just about as effective as a wall. If you gather all your powers of reasoning I suspect that even you could come up with a way around that tax.

Delusional people are frequently pretty sure. At worst, Trump called illegal immigrants rapists.

Not only am I not delusional, but there is a lot of video backing me up. I have no idea why you think it is significant that you think he's talking about Mexican immigrants. That isn't any better.
 

I'm fairly certain why you're insisting he wasn't talking about Mexican illegal immigrants. But I thought it more charitable to describe you as delusional than a politically motivated liar.

Here's his actual statement:

"Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

So, he wasn't even claiming that all Mexican immigrants were rapists. Just that some of them were. And from the context it's clear he wasn't talking about legal immigrants, either.

And here's his policy statement on the matter. Quite clear and to the point.
 

Shag/BB:

The demographics have changed since 1980, some 36 years ago. They have not substantially changed since Bush won in 2004 as many Democrats looking at 2012 like to believe. During the last general election, minorities turned ou at historic highs and white turned out at historic lows. There was not a sudden jump in minority eligible voters or decline in eligible white voters. During the primaries so far, the Obama minority voters are showing up in far lesser numbers while GOP voters are setting new records.




 

>So, he wasn't even claiming that all Mexican immigrants were rapists. Just that some of them were. And from the context it's clear he wasn't talking about legal immigrants, either.

# posted by Blogger Brett : 2:17 PM


From the "context"? What the fuck are you talking about? Mexico isn't "sending" anyone across the border. Mexicans are crossing the border because they're poor and think they have a better chance of getting a job in the US. They're not rapists. So the "context" is pure unadulterated grade A racist bullshit.
 

The demographics have changed since 1980, some 36 years ago. They have not substantially changed since Bush won in 2004
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:54 PM


Dumbfuck, they're changing every year, and not in your favor.
 

So, basically you're admitting total ignorance of what's been going on along our Southern border, and on that basis you're dismissing anything Trump says about it.

Yes, actually Mexico does have a policy of directing it's citizens to illegally immigrate here. They even publish pamphlets on how to do it, and distribute them to unemployed Mexicans.

They also have official arrangements with countries further south to permit free passage to people headed North to illegally cross our border, so long as they don't stop in Mexico.

Facilitating illegal immigration is official Mexican policy, so "sending" is a perfectly appropriate way to describe it.
 

So, basically you're admitting total ignorance of what's been going on along our Southern border, and on that basis you're dismissing anything Trump says about it.

# posted by Blogger Brett : 3:07 PM


I'm doing nothing of the sort. Poor people go to where they think they can find jobs. Period. Fear mongering racist assholes like Trump call them rapists and talk about building a wall in order to get power. In reality the only thing that building a wall does is increase ladder sales. It's NOT a meaningful proposal.
 

BB:

White secular Democrats are literally dying off because they are not reproducing at replacement levels.

White working class and evangelicals have normal reproduction.

The percentage of existing white voters who still vote Democrat has cratered.

African American reproduction and voting participation/preference has not changed. They showed up at historic numbers in 2008 and 2012 to vote for Obama.

Hispanic-Americans reproduce at a rate slightly higher than white working class and evangelicals, but only make up less than 10% of the electorate and are concentrated in a handful of states. Unless the GOP is brain dead enough to make illegal aliens US citizens, Hispanics will not make up more than 10% of the vote over the near to mid term. GOP candidates can get over a third of this demographic of they campaign to them like any other American.
 

In 2000 the eligible voters were 78% white, this time out it's going to be 69%.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/03/2016-electorate-will-be-the-most-diverse-in-u-s-history/
 

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. "

Seems like a pretty general statement about Mexican immigrants to me.
 

GOP candidates can get over a third of this demographic of they campaign to them like any other American.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:19 PM


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Take a look at this link:

http://www.redstate.com/diary/6755mm/2015/09/04/gop-nominee-needs-64-percent-white-vote-30-percent-non-white-vote-win-16/

The % of white voters drops every election. This does not end well for you. Fortunately, you're not very good at math.
 

I mean, when he says "they're rapists" who is the "they?" It's clearly the "people" in "Mexico sends its people." The people that are not those people, "they're not sending."
 

Sure you are. You're denying that Mexico sends people here illegally, even though they actually pass out instructions on how to do it, and have an official arrangement with Central American nations to provide passage to illegal immigrants headed to the US.

Border Crisis Exposed! Mexico Made Deal To Safely Transport Illegals to U.S. Border!

I'd say you're in denial, but I think it's a bit more dishonest than that. You just don't care that you're wrong.
 

The thing is, apart from many of its delusional activists, the GOP itself knows the demographics of voters are changing. That's why they had that affirmative action spectacle that was the GOP National Convention four years ago.
 

beforeitsnews.com?
 

Sure you are. You're denying that Mexico sends people here illegally, even though they actually pass out instructions on how to do it,
# posted by Blogger Brett : 3:31 PM


Numbnuts, passing out instructions is NOT "sending". Sending is what the the Nazis did to Jews. Poor people go where there are job. Period. I'd say that you're in denial, but I think it's something different. You just don't care that you're a racist.
 

So, essentially you're not willing to call it "sending" unless they round people up with press gangs, and ship them off the the border whether they want to go or not.

Just understand that the rest of us aren't required to use your bizzare terminology. Mexico encourages it's citizens to come here illegally, and has arrangements with other countries to aid their citizens in illegally crossing our borders.

That's actually sufficiently outrageous conduct as to qualify as a legitimate casus belli.
 

So, essentially you're not willing to call it "sending" unless they round people up with press gangs, and ship them off the the border whether they want to go or not.

# posted by Blogger Brett : 3:58 PM


Correct. I will use the commonly accepted definition for "sending", and not the racist lunatic definition.
 

That's actually sufficiently outrageous conduct as to qualify as a legitimate casus belli.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 3:58 PM


I have no doubt that lots of racist assholes feel that way. It's probably one of the primary reasons that hardly any Hispanics vote for GOP candidates.
 

Dog whistles are supposed to have some plausible deniability but Trump doesn't seem that subtle. ymmv.


 

I've always figured that if you hear the dog whistle, you're the dog.

By which I mean, that the attributed "dog whistle" meaning isn't generally what's meant by the people actually using that language. They're actually using the words according to their normal denotation and connotation.

Rather, the dog whistle meaning is attributed to the language by the foes of the people using it. To some extent this is so that they can accuse their foes of saying things which their foes annoyingly refrain from actually saying.

But the larger function is actually as a kind of mematic 'immune reaction'. If you get into a conversation with a member of the opposing group, they are at some point going to use some terminology which you, but not they, associate with an outrageous meaning. At that point you'll be outraged, as was intended, the conversation will be derailed, and any chance that you might have an exchange which risks you changing your opinion has been eliminated.

So, by assigning "dog whistle" meanings to terminology used by the opposition, a group polices it's OWN members' opinions, by sabotaging any conversation which might change them.

For example, Republicans will use the term "states' rights" to refer to the fact that, under our federalist system, there are actually subjects over which states, rather than the federal government, have sovereign authority. Since Democrats generally reject this basic constitutional concept, they assigned the term a meaning having to do with violating civil rights. So, the moment a Republican starts to talk about federalist delegation of power to states, Democrats hear a racist, and stop listening.

It's a pretty effective technique for preventing meaningful conversation, but the point is, it's not the Republicans using dog whistles.

It's the Democrats.
 

"conduct as to qualify as a legitimate casus belli"

Huh? I'm no expert in this area, but it seems "Modern international law recognizes only three lawful justifications for waging war: self-defense, defense of an ally required by the terms of a treaty, and approval by the United Nations." Under which of these would the Mexican government providing tips on how to safely enter the country as an illegal fall?
 

"the moment a Republican starts to talk about federalist delegation of power to states, Democrats hear a racist, and stop listening."

Uh, there is kind of a very long history of racists invoking the language of state's rights Brett...
 

That's a mighty fancy, and unnecessary explanatory theory as to why people think 'racist' when they hear someone carry on about 'state's rights.' The slave states, the Confederacy, the Jim Crow South, the Dixiecrat Party, etc., all invoked the language of 'state's rights' while actually supporting terribly racist regimes, I think many people are suspicious of such language.

You should be able to grasp this: In the past you've been known to say that when people talk about 'common sense' or moderate gun control measures you simply don't hear or buy into the 'normal denotation and connotation' of those words because so many times in the past you can find those people actually supporting what you see as something far more infringing on gun rights, and so you assume they're talking about such infringement really.
 

Republicans selectively care about state rights, the term coming up when certain topics arise. A narrow group apply the term evenhandedly, so we have the Federalist Society opposing DOMA, e.g., while Republicans in Congress generally did not.

Brett is a conservative (said as much), which is fine as far as it goes, though I don't agree with them on various things. But, this inability to admit that both sides share various tendencies of humanity -- such as use of dog whistles -- is tiresome.


 

"Under which of these would the Mexican government providing tips on how to safely enter the country as an illegal fall?"

Assuming that was actually an exclusive list, (It's not.) self defense. Mexico is invading us.
 

Mexico is invading us.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 7:16 PM


It's really a mystery why more Hispanics don't support you idiots.
 

Mr. W:

Actual voting by Hispanics and Asians in 2012 (a high minority turnout election) was less than half of the claimed pool of eligible voters and massively lower than native whites and African Americans. This suggests that a large percentage of immigrants are falsely claiming to be citizens eligible to vote. Census survey interviewers accept what they are told without verification.
 

"self defense. Mexico is invading us."

Brett, I hope you appreciate that the 'normal denotation and connotation' of the word invasion in the context of national self defense refers to armed, organized military action. A flow of economic migrants is usually not thought of as an 'invasion.'
 

"Actual voting by Hispanics and Asians in 2012 (a high minority turnout election) was less than half of the claimed pool of eligible voters and massively lower than native whites and African Americans"

I'm curious as to where you got that. Hispanic eligible voters were 11% for the Census and 10% for the exit polls.

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/

 

"2012 (a high minority turnout election) "

I may be a stinker, but I can't let this pass without noting that you kept predicting it wouldn't be and I kept telling you it would....Minority voting patterns not being your forte...
 

"A flow of economic migrants is usually not thought of as an 'invasion.'"

When one country encourages it's citizens to illegally enter the territory of another country, the term "invasion" is perfectly appropriate, even if they're not wearing uniforms. When several countries formally cooperate in entering the territory of another country contrary to it's laws, "invasion" is even more appropriate.
 

BD: "Actual voting by Hispanics and Asians in 2012 (a high minority turnout election) was less than half of the claimed pool of eligible voters and massively lower than native whites and African Americans"

Mr. W: I'm curious as to where you got that.


End of your linked Pew article.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/03/2016-electorate-will-be-the-most-diverse-in-u-s-history/
 

BD: "2012 (a high minority turnout election) "

Mr. W: I may be a stinker, but I can't let this pass without noting that you kept predicting it wouldn't be and I kept telling you it would....Minority voting patterns not being your forte...


No problem. I have repeatedly admitted that I got 2012 wrong by applying a historic turnout pattern to a very ahistoric election.

I still do not understand that election. The first Obama administration economically devastated the African American, Hispanic and Millennial voters whom Team Obama turned out at very high levels.

Talk about voting against your interests!

In any case, we are not seeing anything similar during this cycle. With only Hillary and the Bern to choose from, Dem voting is WAY off. Time will tell.
 

I still do not understand that election. The first Obama administration economically devastated the African American, Hispanic and Millennial voters whom Team Obama turned out at very high levels.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 9:01 AM


Everyone in the country not named Bart DePalma was fully aware that the Cheney/Bush administration was responsible for the economic collapse.
 

BB:

You and the rest of the propagandized low information voters.

The recession ended in early 2009.

The percentage of minorities and millennials with any type of work has fallen for years now during the Obama administration.

Even Team Obama claimed that the economy with or without their policies should have recovered years ago.

https://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf
 

Further with regard to the "Cheney/Bush administration" that BB reminds us of, take a peek at the interesting column of Jacob Heilbrunn in the NYTimes with the title "The Neocons vs. Donald Trump." It provides an interesting analysis of the Republicans' views on foreign interventions going back to pre-American entry into WW II and following thereafter, with the budding neocons that surfaced during the Clinton administration and took control when the Supreme Court (5-4) elected George W. Bush. [No need to recite the errors of the Bush-43 administration that ended with its 2007-8 Great Recession.] While Trump has his obvious flaws, consider what might happen if the Neocons came back into power.
 

You and the rest of the propagandized low information voters.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 9:36 AM


Regardless of what lunatics like you happen to believe, the rest of the country was fully aware that Cheney/Bush crashed the economy. It's priceless when the assholes who drove our the economy into the ground turn around and blame the guy who is cleaning up their mess for not doing so fast enough.

 

The term "perfectly appropriate" as seen in the dog whistle situation tends to mean "in my view, using my ideological policy vision."

The broad use of "invasion" works on some level though it isn't quite the thing generally used by that term. Merriam Webster ranks definitions basically by usage and its definition of "invade" is "to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force." That is also the basic legal, including under international law, meaning of the term.

Not entering a country in violation of the laws or encouraging people to do so. If ten people come for economic reasons (as with the horrible situation in Mexico regarding the drug trade, in large part arising from U.S. policy and actions) by use of a "coyote," the word "invasion" is not applied there. OTOH, if a combat raid was staged, yes, that would be an "invasion."

A tertiary definition is "to enter or be in (a place where you are not wanted)." This has a broad meaning and sometimes "invasion" is used in that fashion. And, "invasion" that involves entry in violation of the laws can work as usage. As could loads of stuff deemed akin to bank robbery when interpreting constitutional language since Brett doesn't think of things that way. It isn't simply wrong. No. It's a perversion of the language.

Tends not to be though at times it is wrong or here broad usage of terms when the other person is using the normal legal definitions.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

BB:

Not cleaning up the mess fast enough? Try instead turning a recession into an ongoing depression.

Labor participation (the percentage of Americans with work of any kind) has been falling for years.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/03/People%20not%20in%20labor%20force.jpg

People falling out of the workforce (ceasing looking for work and instead living off of the government, family or on the street) accounts for nearly all of the drop in the official U3 unemployment rate. If these folks were still looking for work, the real unemployment rate would be nearly 10%

http://s.libertaddigital.com/2016/01/13/desempleo-eeuu.jpg

 

It appears to me that Trump is simply going to win outright, unless either Rubio or Cruz drops out quite soon. It would be silly to expect Cruz to drop out in favor of a candidate who's got less than half as many delegates, so it would have to be Rubio.

OTOH, I've seen analysis that says the upcoming states are more hostile to Cruz, and Rubio is probably going to do better in them than Cruz does, which gives him little motivation to drop out himself. Where "better" means coming in second to Trump, not actually winning.

So, likely it's going to stay at least a three man race, and Trump goes to the convention with enough delegates to win on the first vote.

The wild card is that the GOP convention will be operating under the "8 state rule", that disqualifies any candidate who hasn't gotten an outright majority of the delegates in at least 8 states.

At this point, only Trump qualifies under that rule. Cruz will probably also qualify by the convention. But it doesn't appear that Rubio will make the cut. So, unless the rule is changed, Rubio can't even qualify to be voted on by the convention, only Trump or Cruz will be viable candidates for even a 'brokered" convention.

I'm still expecting a Trump/Cruz unity ticket.
 

The 8 state rule is not fixed -- it can be changed by the Rules Committee though as noted, it is a moot point. Cruz won seven races and it would surprise if he doesn't win a few more; the other two are unlikely choices.

Trump/Cruz is a way to go & some voters will like it. But, it seems like not a totally ideal move to have two people the establishment (and around 1/3 or more of the Republican voters) simply don't like on the ticket. A true "unity" ticket would find someone more establishment.
 

Not cleaning up the mess fast enough? Try instead turning a recession into an ongoing depression.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:19 AM


Regardless, your loony views are not shared by many.
 

Blogger Bart DePalma said...

Talk about voting against your interests!


Yes, hard to believe that younger voters didn't vote to give up their healthcare. Idiot.

 

A true "unity" ticket would find someone more establishment.
# posted by Blogger Joe : 10:41 AM


I'm pretty sure it's either going to be Gary Busey or Meatloaf. Vice President Meatloaf does have a certain panache.
 

"A true "unity" ticket would find someone more establishment."

Based on the primaries so far, the party establishment doesn't actually control a lot of voters. Resources, sure, they have lots of those to waste on candidates the party base refuses to vote for. But you win elections with voters, not wasted resources.

#1+#2>#1+#3. You want to assemble the largest possible coalition, and you don't do that by bringing in the distant third candidate. You do that by bringing together the first and second place candidates.

Really, the only justification for including an establishment VP, is the establishement's threat to rule or ruin. But they seem to be backing down on that threat.
 

"End of your linked Pew article."

Yes, I certainly missed that, mea culpa. I still don't see how they got those figures and how they square with the exit polling data.

"I still do not understand that election."

No offense, but yes I'm not surprised that you might have missed how motivating it could be for blacks to turn out to re-elect the first black President in a nation that for most of it's history systemically oppressed them while extolling it's devotion to everyone being equal.

"The recession ended in early 2009."

It started in Bush's term and it ended in the third quarter of 2009 in Obama's, with things fairly steadily getting better to this point. Of course many people credited him with that.

"Try instead turning a recession into an ongoing depression."

A "depression" with housing starts nearly double what they were, the stock market up about 200%, GDP increases? I know you like to make up meanings for words, but wow.
 

"When one country encourages it's citizens to illegally enter the territory of another country, the term "invasion" is perfectly appropriate"

That's just really far from the normal connotation and denotation Brett. The migrants aren't just not uniformed, they're not armed, they're not organized, they're not under any command and are not working towards any military goal. It's just a goofy, characteristically hyperbolic use of the word.
 

I also tried to track down Brett's assertions. There's plenty from mainstream sources on the Mexican government creating a pamphlet for migrants advising them about things like not to wade through deep water with heavy clothes (lest you drown) and such. The Mexican government says it made these recognizing some of their people were going to try this anyway and wanting them to be as safe as possible. You could call that 'encouraging' them to do it I guess, the way that many people charge free needle exchange programs as 'encouraging' needle use, but it seems reasonable to assume there's simply a harm reduction model going on as the motive.

The second charge, about "When one country encourages it's citizens to illegally enter the territory of another country, the term "invasion" is perfectly appropriate" was very hard to source. You can find it mentioned in a number of strongly ideological, rather 'rinky-dink' looking sources, but tracing it back to an original source led me to Spanish language website that Google could translate. Reading it without importing as much as I imagine Brett did it seemed to say this: there was friction between Mexico and Guatemala because of migrants from the latter entering the Southern border of the former. The Mexican leader wanted there to be a posture of humanitarianism and 'unity' on this issue rather than confrontation, so they had a pact where these migrants could get a temporary stay in Mexico and be offered basic health and screening services, particularly aimed at child migrants. Now, Brett and other proponents of illegal immigration restrictions of course look at this and, thinking that a fair number (but certainly not all) migrants from Guatemala go through Mexico towards the US this must be some plot to invade the US by the two nations. But I think by now we know how Brett interprets things, look upon the facts behind the conspiracy charge and decide for yourselves...
 

BD: "End of your linked Pew article."

Mr. W: Yes, I certainly missed that, mea culpa. I still don't see how they got those figures and how they square with the exit polling data.


Pew is not providing much in the way of supporting data apart from general references on the charts to several years of various surveys. Take it for what it is worth to you.

BD: "I still do not understand that election."

Mr. W: No offense, but yes I'm not surprised that you might have missed how motivating it could be for blacks to turn out to re-elect the first black President in a nation that for most of it's history systemically oppressed them while extolling it's devotion to everyone being equal.


I assumed a 2012 African American turnout somewhere between 2004 and 2008 to account for both racial solidarity and high unemployment.

BD: "The recession ended in early 2009."

Mr. W:It started in Bush's term and it ended in the third quarter of 2009 in Obama's, with things fairly steadily getting better to this point. Of course many people credited him with that.


The GDP recession ended sometime during the 2Q of 2009. The GDP contraction for the 2Q of 2009 was very low, so the recession likely ended sometime in the middle of that quarter, probably around May.

Unemployment continued to rise, which is normal because unemployment generally follows the GDP contraction for some months.

There has never been a recovery from that recession or in Mr. Obama's approval numbers. Our 2% GDP growth is less than during the Great Depression following the initial 1930-1932 recession and the percentage of Americans with work has been falling for years. Call it the second progressive depression in less than a century.

Mr. W: A "depression" with housing starts nearly double what they were, the stock market up about 200%, GDP increases? I know you like to make up meanings for words, but wow.

A depression is a recession without a recovery. Economic growth is faster than during the opening recession, but far lower than normal.

The Fed manufacturing trillions of dollars of monopoly money, not the 2% GDP growth, drove the inflation of stock prices. This is known as a stock market bubble and it has started to correct now that the Fed is tightening the flow of monopoly money.
 

There has never been a recovery from that recession or in Mr. Obama's approval numbers.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 12:27 PM


Saint Ronnie Raygun approval March 1988
51%

Obama approval March 2016
52%
 

BB:

That particular Gallup poll is an outlier.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
 

"You can find it mentioned in a number of strongly ideological, rather 'rinky-dink' looking sources"

I've always had a bit of a problem with that particular complaint. The idea that you don't have to believe a report unless you find it in a source that wouldn't be inclined to report it, I mean.

Mexico has very strict immigration laws, and treats illegal immigrants very harshly. But they make an exception for illegal immigrants who are just passing through. That's not exactly a friendly act towards the country they're passing through on the way to.

I think it's extremely likely at this point, that Trump will get the nomination. A toss up whether he'll win in the fall, and a toss up whether he actually means anything he has to say. So, we've got about a 1 in 4 chance of actually having a border some time next year. Not good, but better than the zero chance we had before Trump entered the race.
 

That particular Gallup poll is an outlier.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 1:11 PM


No, it isn't. There are a couple of outliers in the mid 40s. The rest are all grouped in the 50-52 range. Sorry.
 

A toss up whether he'll win in the fall
# posted by Blogger Brett : 1:13 PM


No, it isn't. He's going to lose. It won't be close.
 

Possibly, it's not like I'm expressing any confidence in the matter. In any event, we'll know in 242 days.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Possibly, it's not like I'm expressing any confidence in the matter. In any event, we'll know in 242 days.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 1:42 PM


Calling it a tossup is ridiculously overconfident. Trump's negatives are really, really bad. This is a suicidal nomination.
 

Anyway, "Trump/Cruz is a way to go & some voters will like it."

OTOH, I think Cruz will be hard even for many Trump voters to take. Toss in the non-Trump/Cruz set plus non-Republicans, might not be an ideal 'unity' ticket.

Will see in a few months.
 

Sorry for the deletions. Anyway, Mr. W. is doing yeoman effort today.
 

"Calling it a tossup is ridiculously overconfident."

This has echos of the people who, just a few months ago, were ridiculously overconfident that Trump stood no chance of getting the nomination. As a general matter, it's stupid to have confidence as to what the future holds, outside of utterly mechanical subjects such as the workings of celestial mechanics.

Trump set out to secure the Republican nomination, he has been far more successful at that than anybody but perhaps he himself, anticipated. He will likely get that nomination, and at such time as he has it in the bag, he will switch over to trying to win the general election.

It's extremely foolish to be confident that he won't succeed at that, too.
 

It's extremely foolish to be confident that he won't succeed at that, too.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 3:54 PM


Not really. His negatives are really bad. All this primary shows is that it's actually possible to underestimate the stupidity of Republicans.
 

PA judge finds Ted Cruz is natural born citizen: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80789 (link to opinion in article; opinion is formatted badly but overall readable).

An Ohio state judge also ruled against the Secretary of State's December 2015 announcement 17 year olds are not qualified to vote for delegates in the March 15 primary. http://nbc4i.com/2016/03/11/judge-rules-against-husted-in-teen-voting-case/

This is a state court suit separate from the federal suit filed by the Sanders campaign referenced by Mr W. The SOS opposed last minute judicial decisions of this sort but his December 2015 announcement would have made any lawsuit fairly last minute as things moved along the courts.

There should not be some "free pass" in cases like this where potentially illegal policies are upheld for that first election. The best policy would to make the policies prospective past the next election & allow time for reasonable litigation.
 

I have to say that the PA decision is very poorly reasoned (formatting aside). The most significant omission is that although it cites Wong Kim Ark, it fails to even discuss the language in Wong Kim Ark and Bellei which is so harmful to Cruz' case. Its "originalist" argument is also quite weak, even on its own terms.

There's also one dubious assertion which the court is not directly responsible for but should have checked. The issue arises from John Jay's letter to Washington in July 1787, suggesting that the Commander in Chief be required to be "natural born". Some scholars have suggested that some of Jay's own children were born in Spain, so that it was unlikely that he meant to exclude them from eligibility. The court adopted this reasoning. There's a major flaw here, though: Jay's children born abroad were his daughters. His sons were both born in the US (one in NJ, one in NY). Jay would never have considered his daughters as eligible to become CinC, so he wasn't putting his own children at risk by his suggestion.
 

Brett

I'm not arguing you can't find good news on 'rinky-dink' websites or bad news on more established ones, but that as heuristic it's less likely. The New York and Washington Times have their biases and mistakes to be sure, but overall I think they take journalism and its conventions more seriously than the general PatriotNewsfromBob.com or Marx1stsUn1te.net newsite. The latter tend, among other problems, to source their stories poorly, and that's what I found about your claim. In order to judge the program in question it would be nice to be able to actually read it rather than some person's conclusions about what they 'think it all means.'

With all due respect, I find you to be fairly imbued with a sense of paranoia and conspiracy in interpreting news. I'm not trying to insult you (you know what they say about paranoia, you're not if everyone *is* out to get you!), just recognizing a fundamental difference in how you and I take in and assess news stories. We see the same fact pattern (assuming that this poorly sourced story is correct): a wave of Central Americans crossing over into Mexico many if not most (but not all!) hoping to go to the US, Mexico engaged in some stricter enforcement of their southern border for a time, actions that were extremely costly to them not only in time/money but also relations with their Southern neighbor and actions that sat uncomfortably with their Catholic belief system (which tends to not favor harsh treatment of migrants); eventually the Mexican President decides that this fight is not one he's willing to fight much anymore, after all, it's costing Mexico a lot and is not, ultimately, *their* problem, and with a mix of not wanting to incur these costs and perhaps an honest concern about the health and safety of many of these migrants while in his country he essentially gives them a 'temporary pass.' You look at that and see an 'invasion' 'by Mexico' which would support a war, I think at most it falls far, far short of that. But to me the main point is, regardless of our disagreement here, I would think you could see that most people that deal with international relations and law would find it exceedingly odd to think of this as an 'invasion' warranting war. I hope that while you would dismiss the distinctions as ultimately not dispositive you could also see that the fact that Mexico is not organizing or initiating this, but is at most 'facilitating' and at least 'not doing what they could to stop it'; and that the migrants are not organized, armed, or under the command of any authority means that the word 'invasion' which, in the context of international law and relations has a 'normal connotation and denotation' that refers to organized, armed forces under an authority initiating their belligerent entry to a nation, is inappropriate here, a term more hyperbolic or propagandist than 'normal connotation and denotation.' I think if a liberal were to use such a term in such a fashion you'd be on here loudly criticizing them ignoring the 'obvious' meaning, Bart would show up and claim they were 'usurping' the national order for relying on such a sense of the word for legal purposes.

I want to stress that this isn't to say that you're wrong about whether we, as US citizens, should be upset about Mexico's actions or about illegal immigration in general. It might be that we should, as Guatemala certainly did, pressure Mexico to act differently here. And I'm a great deal more sympathetic to the idea of immigration restrictions than you might guess. But I don't see 'invasions' and other conspiracies happening here, I find such language tiresome, and, well, to be frank, a bit nutty. I hope you'll appreciate that I think I would find such equivalent language on the left to be so as well.
 

joe, thanks for flagging those two decisions, and for the update on the Virgin Islands Caucus. I'm constantly amazed (and thankful) for the things you reference here (as well as Shaq and Mark Field btw), but I have to ask, where did you find the results for that caucus? I looked high and low for them!

Also, Mark, I think you're comments about the PA ruling are spot on. Thanks for your contributions, and please keep them coming!
 

Brett,

I'd also note that this assertion: "Mexico has very strict immigration laws, and treats illegal immigrants very harshly." which seemed to be a premise in your argument that their letting temporary immigrants be treated more lenient is especially bad, might not be current.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_Mexico#Migration_Law_of_2011

I will say this about two areas of agreement with Brett: 1. I think it's wise to say " it's not like I'm expressing any confidence in the matter" about an election this far away (while I think BB is astute in noting what he does, I think the election is so far off and things in elections so volatile and that 2. it's possible Trump could win a general election (again, hard to guess what could come up between now and then).
 

Bart, I have the feeling that were this a GOP administration coming in during a time of stock market collapse, negative GDP and high unemployment, and within a few years finding all those reversed, you wouldn't pivot to alternative measurements to poo-poo it....


 

Legal reporter Chris Geidner reports that Ohio SOS will comply with the court order given time restraints given the state appeals court does not plan to hear the appeal until a day before the election. Not a good way to run a railroad.

===

I don't know enough about Jay to so determine but given the number of women monarchs in England alone, it would be a bit curious really to "never have considered" the possibility a woman would be President. How far does that go, especially given order of presidential secession possibilities such as Secretary of State?

Also, it's happenstance that it was a girl. He would have known it could be a boy, ditto any other person in his position who had a son in a similar situation. So, it wouldn't seal the deal anyway. Plus, it would also deny the daughters "natural born" citizenship either way, which isn't trivial even if it is deemed inherently impossible for a women to be President.

The data point doesn't really tell me much though it's somewhat useful to know daughters were involved given Jay's opinions are being relied upon. Anyway, without relitigating it, I didn't find Mark Field's analysis on this issue convincing. I'll be agnostic as to this state judge's own work.




 

Mr. W., I found the Virgin Island results on Twitter.

Nate Silver Verified account ‏@NateSilver538 18h18 hours ago

Nate Silver Retweeted Phil Kerpen

Virgin Islands caucus results are in. It was a landslide for uncommitted.


(etc.)
 

joe-women were systematically disfavored back then, female monarchs existed because blood ties at times overcame this prejudice. The American system was not to be based on blood ties in any way, so an understanding, in line with English precedent at the time of the Founding, that systematically disfavored women, is not hard for me to buy.

Again, thanks for the 'scoop' on the VI.
 

Jay's letter didn't mention the President. He only mentioned the CinC, and given the era, I think it's reasonable to expect he never considered his daughters to be eligible for CinC. It was only later, after he sent his letter, that the Convention established the powers of the President, including CinC. So, strictly speaking, Jay's letter said nothing about the eligibility of his daughters to be President, per se, though I doubt he considered that either. After all, his daughters couldn't vote, much less run for office.

As for caring about them being "natural born", there's no problem there. As the Court has repeatedly held, the only distinction between a "natural born" citizen and a "naturalized" one is that the latter is ineligible to become President. Jay's daughters were unaffected by the clause in practical effect.

I should add that if his daughters had been somehow suitable for the presidency or the CinC under the standards of that time, they were "Citizen[s] of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" and therefore eligible under that clause even if not under the "natural born" clause. Jay, of course, couldn't have anticipated that alternative, but in the event the whole issue was moot as to his daughters.

Finally, Jay did know that his relevant children were female. His time overseas was in the past in 1787, and all of his children but the last had already been born (William was b. 1789). As far as he knew when he wrote the letter, only his daughters were affected.

The point about succession possibilities is an interesting one. Jay, of course, wouldn't have anticipated that because he wasn't thinking of the President when he wrote his letter, much less anticipating succession possibilities. But we've had at least one SoS who was not natural born: Madeleine Albright. She was, however, naturalized in the US, and under Sec. 1 of the 14th A, as interpreted by Wong Kim Ark, she'd presumably be eligible to become President.

Thanks MW. I appreciate the, uh, appreciation.
 

I'm aware of the sexism of the times, Mr. W., so that's reasonable, but English history (back to ancient times) did have evidence of strong female monarchs with military control. So, just as some noted the possibility of a Muslim President conceivably, totally barring the possibility at some point would be short-sighted. Bias though does that.

Here's the letter: http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0251

"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen."

The specific is couched in a general concern, which is provided as a possible basis of the clause by the judge here. Since the "commander-in-chief" here is the POTUS, the "rule" suggested would apply to the President generally. Yes, Jay wasn't specifically speaking about the POTUS. The whole thing doesn't amount to much as a single data point.

The Constitution singles out the President as being a natural born citizen. Whatever the Court eventually noted especially as equal protection was more of a concern so even alienage meant a whole lot less than it used to, the status was deemed of some importance. Plus, more conditions can arise for naturalized citizens. It is of some relevance. To toss in a new citation, the judge cites a recent case (Hall v. Florida) that says specifically "No natural-born citizen may be denaturalized."

As for the daughters being "Citizen[s] of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution," okay though how is that determined? By what rule (residence?) were they citizens of the U.S.? Plus, Jay also knew his children BY THE GRACE OF GOD might not have been female. He knew the sex of his children, yeah. And, also that someone else in his position could have had sons. Thus, if the rule was "x," it could have affected him. I don't see it as compelling one way or the other myself. Or, I'd rely on him being on a diplomatic assignment at the time, which was a special situation.

Albright was naturalized but still can be President?
 

As of 1787, there were essentially no other persons in Jay's position. There were only a few American emissaries abroad between 1776 and 1787 (Jay, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and a few others). AFAIK, nobody else in the diplomatic service had children abroad. There undoubtedly were other Americans abroad in those years, and its possible some had children born abroad.

It's an interesting question how to interpret the alternative clause in Art. II (citizens at the time of adoption). It never came up, AFAIK, but it presumably depended on state law. Women and children were citizens -- whites, anyway; without debating Dred Scott here -- and while I don't know what NY law was at that time, it presumably incorporated the common law + statutory expansions from English practice; under the latter, they would have been citizens. I'm sure nobody ever questioned the citizenship of the Jay daughters.

I agree that it's a minor point, but the judge did cite it in support and probably wouldn't have if he (?) had known all the facts because the inference drawn is so weak.

As for Albright, she's a 14th A Sec. 1 citizen, which, according to Wong Kim Ark, was declaratory of the existing law: "This sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed -- "born in the United States," "naturalized in the United States," and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States."

Under Rogers v Bellei, "Thus, at long last, there emerged [in 14A Sec.1] an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action."

Combining these statements, I interpret Albright as eligible. But I wouldn't say it's definitive.


 

Apparently, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich are coordinating their campaigns with Jeb Bush as the intermediary to stop Trump next Tuesday. The campaigns are leaving OH to Kasich, FL for Rubio and all the other states to Cruz.

http://theresurgent.com/the-deal-is-made-kasich-to-ohio-rubio-to-florida-cruz-out-of-both/

Hopefully, Kasich and Rubio will pull out after Tuesday.
 

Cruz won a delegate in Guam. Does that count as an "eighth" or does he also have to win the uncommitted delegates there still up in the air?

State law sounds sensible as to defining that clause but as I noted in the past that also might have gone to who was a "natural born citizen," underlining the term can be defined by changing statutory law at least in part.

We are now saying someone born in a foreign nation to foreigners can be President? Yeah, don't think that quite is "definitive" and those two cases are really straining from the weight you are putting on them now. Time to go.

 

My interpretation does create anomalies, no doubt. The key point is how to interpret 14A Sec. 1: if that's intended to define "natural born", then my interpretation follows as a matter of course. If only the "born in the US" clause serves that purpose, then Ted Cruz has no possible argument. If the 14A has no bearing on the definition of "natural born", then it becomes much more indeterminate.
 

I don't wish to prolong this thread, but wish to point out a post at the Legal History Blog on a Workshop announcement "The Reconstruction Amendments" described as follows:

"Constitutional scholars regard the Reconstruction Amendments--The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth--as constituting the American republic's third Constitution, the first being the failed Articles of Confederation (1781-1789), the document of 1787 as amended by the Bill of Rights the second. Each was a constitutive moment, creating a new nation on a constitutional footing different from the preceding regime. The Reconstruction Amendments potentially transformed the state-centered constitutional federal order of 1789-1861, resting as it did on slavery and dominated by slaveholding interests, into a national republic premised on universal freedom and the equality of all people. They abolished slavery, added new securities for personal liberty, and empowered the national Congress to enforce those innovations, while securing the freedom, status, dignity, and rights of the freed people. The ensuing century-and-a-half of constitutional development saw some of those aims partially achieved, but the promise of the Amendments remains unfulfilled today. Our initial focus will be on the origins and creation of the Amendments, and their development through the first Reconstruction, the counterrevolutionary resistance that imposed White Supremacy, and the struggles of the long civil rights movement of the twentieth century to realize the promise of the Amendments. But we will study the impact of the Amendments on non-racial matters as well."
 

Can I just say what a relief to find someone who actually knows what theyre talking about on the internet. You definitely know how to bring an issue to light and make it important. More people need to read this and understand this side of the story. I cant believe youre not more popular because you definitely have the gift. Visit Site Visit Site Visit Site
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home