johnfabian
2d ago
Because it's not a list of three categories. It's a description of one category, of which all three are needed to qualify. I.e. that citizenship is not withheld from aliens AND foreigners AND children of foreign diplomats, but rather children of foreign diplomats who are also aliens and foreigners. (Otherwise, for example, someone who had say, a foreign diplomat father and an American mother, born in America, would not receive birthright citizenship.)
I think semantically it is meant to be understand this way for a number of reasons: the alternative explanation is not consistent with Howard's purposes otherwise OR the final wording of the amendment, it doesn't make sense to describe newborn children being born as foreigners or aliens within the context of the rest of the amendment, and if it was a list it would certainly be more clear if there were ors/ands in between the items.
If I were to say to say, for example, to a car dealer that I only liked cars that were "red, fast, fuel-efficient"; I would expect him to understand that I want a car that is all three, rather than one car of each.
johnfabian
2d ago
Certainly. No disagreements here. I have been very vocal about this in Canadian politics, which is all the worse given that we (ostensibly) have parliamentary supremacy and the means to enforce it.
johnfabian
2d ago
Children of foreigners, aliens, and diplomats were not intended to be covered by the 14th by the very author of the amendment.
Is that how you parse that quote? It seems to me he is referring exclusively to the children of foreign diplomats. Not three different categories of people (i.e., foreigners AND aliens AND those who belong to families of ambassadors...).
Howard in other instances seemed to very clearly anticipate that the 14th would apply to the children of people from other countries who were not (yet) American citizens. In any case, the amendment as written very obviously does not make the distinction you are purporting Howard to have made.
johnfabian
2d ago
Yes. I think that legalizing gay marriage is/was a good thing, but I am skeptical of doing it via tenuous legal mechanisms rather than via the elected representatives of the people or referendum. I don't think that ruling was as tortuously reasoned as Roe v Wade (or the dissenters in this judgment), but it took an issue that should've been decided by legislatures and instead hinged it on a 5-4 decision on shaky grounds. At this point it does not look like gay marriage is particularly at risk of being undone but we've been through this before and it's no guarantee of it surviving forever.
It is clear that in the aftermath of Obergefell both the left and right wings of American politics have decided to use the courts as their primary means of advancing their "big issues" rather than Congress, or god forbid, actually persuading the public.
johnfabian
2d ago
This being anything other than 9-0 is an ominous level of partisan hackery. Like it or not, the Constitution is unambiguous with respect to birthright citizenship.
Expect future decades of the big issues of our time being decided by judges because legislatures have abandoned their responsibilities, and declining civic participation and partisanship frustrates any attempts to amend constitutions.
johnfabian
3d ago
Fairly easy. You do naval blockade on Somalia until they accept them. Their welfare is none of our concern. You arrest Somali politicians. If needed military strikes. You change the constitution that only Swedes have human rights in Sweden. You go with the least amount of cruelty to achieve your goal, but you shouldn't let the cruelty itself distract you.
Sweden is going to have to rather decidedly alter its armed forces if this is the plan. Time to start building nuclear-powered supercarriers.
johnfabian
5d ago
It wasn't uncommon for elective monarchies in Europe, for example, to pick foreign nobles as their King - better to have someone from outside the existing system who is not party to any of the various internecine squabbles come in and rule you, rather than risk somebody from the other camp gets in.
johnfabian
8d ago
I had previously wrote a comment about how there are certain events that are "culture war nexuses" that somehow seem to bring a million things together into one incident
johnfabian
10d ago
The UK will soon be awash with quiet batpeople.
I suppose it depends how narrow the "short term" is, but to my mind jumps the example of Pearl Harbor. The American fleet loses a bunch of obsolete (even if they didn't know it) battleships and learns the power of naval aviation in the process. Instead of trying to fight the new war with the old one's tactics, the US Navy significantly re-orients its procurement and campaign strategies and their doctrine. This builds the force that reverses the war in '42 and wins it in '43 and '44
This isn't just my opinion either. I've read several historians say that Pearl Harbor was a net gain for the Americans even in the immediate term
johnfabian
17d ago
So far, if you've approached everything Trump has said with respect to his dealings with Iran with the expectation that the opposite will happen (deal = expect more attacks, threats of destroying Iran = deal), you would be 100% correct.
So I'm not expecting things to be resolved just yet.
It would certainly be an unconventional way to word it today, but it was 1866. I think ultimately you have to say that is the proper interpretation though, because everything outside this one specific quote with slightly ambiguous wording suggests Howard only meant to exclude children of foreign diplomats, and that's how it was interpreted then.
More options
Context Copy link