johnfabian
6d ago
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.
johnfabian
6d 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
6d 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.
Happiness comes from within, not without. There is no amount of success or achievement or material wealth that will satisfy someone who is not able to accept himself.
More options
Context Copy link