If the argument that using foreigners and aliens is to clarify that children borne of diplomats who happen to be U.S. citizens as well, then that moves me not at all.
It isn’t dispositive but it is instructive. That is, if the answer is “obvious” then how did the drafter understand it to mean something else? That is at least a clue that it isn’t obvious.
Your construction makes no sense. First, the punctuation would be wrong. Second, describing diplomats as foreigners and aliens would be surplusage on top of surplusage.
Re trans and sports.
Read this ESPN article. It is a lesson in how to editorialize a purported “straight” news story (no pun intended).
And kavanaugh? Maybe that should make you pause and think perhaps your position isn’t air tight.
This reminds me of Obamacare. Everyone was told “not a real issue” as the received wisdom was “clear” but when you actually look at the received wisdom it just isn’t clear.
- Prev
- Next

Sure but Roberts for unknown reasons reached the constitutional issue when he needed just statutory.
More options
Context Copy link