On any given day, I grade myself on a sliding scale from Harry Chapin's "Cat's in the Cradle" to Dan Fogelberg's "Leader of the Band."
I hope I am in the Fogleberg Quartile more than the Chapin, but as long as I am above the Median, I guess I am ok. :)
Been trying to understand the original 14th Amendment Citizenship debate from a primary source (Congressional Globe). Came across this exchange in the 39th Congresss (May of 1866) during the debate as to the extent Southern insurrectionistswould be prevented from holding office (Section 3 of the 14th Amendment).
I assume tensions are running high. Senator Trumbull (Republican from Illinois) takes Senator Doolittle (Democrat from Wisconsin) to task. Doolittle does not like it .
I sense Trumbull's retort (statement in Red, explanation highligted in Blue) to Doolittle has some resonance today.
 |
| Link to this debate HERE |
Treason is a word that has been used too loosely lately.
Here is what the Constitution says about it:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."
This article, "On Treason and Traitors," explains the historical meaning AND intent of the concept in language even I can understand.
""No American charged with treason has been convicted for conduct related to anything other than direct support of an enemy at war with the United States (for example, the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War, the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany in World War II). Thus, if the U.S. is not in an armed conflict with another belligerent party, it is factually and legally impossible to be guilty of treason. As Larson points out in this blog post about alleged collusion between Trump and Russia in his first term, “working with foreign countries to harm the United States is not part of the definition.”
Crimes, but Not Treason
In conclusion, the following acts are often the basis for claims of treason; they might be unlawful (violations of some other statute, like espionage) but are not “treasonous,” and the perpetrators are not “traitors” no matter how disloyal they may seem to the public or to the president:
- Careless leaking of classified, top-secret, war plans onto the internet or an unsecured messaging app (this is a possible crime, but not treason);
- A lawfully initiated investigation into a political leader’s “official” actions (this does not qualify as any crime);
- Being “un-American" (this is not definable, much less a crime);
- Expressing sympathy, or donating time and money, to the victims of an ally’s war effort (this is a form of protected speech); or
- Undermining American economic interests for the sake of another nation out of incompetence (not a crime) or corruption (possibly a crime, but not treason).
I have read a lot about the controversy around "Birthright Citizenship". Folks for and against it use quotes from the 1866 debates in Congress (House and Senate) to support their position. Seems you can find both sides in the debate.
Below are screenshots of the actual record of the debate in the Senate just before the vote to approve the language of the 14th Amendment. This document can be found HERE. The debate I am interested in starts on page 2890 of the document.
If you have read anything on the issue, as you read these 3 pages, you will recognize various quotes that have been used extensively to support positions regarding birthright citizenship.
In the middle of the first page you will see "Reconstruction". Senator Howard introduces the amendment and gives brief commentary. There you will find a famous/infamous quote I see used very often.
After Howard's comments, you will find Senator Cowan's comments. He unabashedly takes the side of limiting the scope of birthright citizenship. You will find several quotes from him that have made it into contemporary criticism of birthright citizenship.
After Cowan, you will find Senator Conness takes the wider view of birthright citizenship. He unabashedly takes the view that children born "of all parentage whatever" are citizens of the United States.
BOTTOMLINE: This is the official record of the debate. Best one read from the PRIMARY source rather than cherry-picked quotes to justifiy a particular point of view.
I came across this Latin term while reading a Supreme Court case (I lost track of which one it was). I think it captures most conversations about politics and economics, as well as any other current event discussion, as of late.
"Ipse Dixit"
Ipse dixit is a Latin term that translates to "he himself said it." In legal contexts, it refers to an assertion or statement made by an individual based solely on their own authority , without any supporting evidence or proof. It is often used to criticize arguments or claims that rely solely on the speaker's authority, rather than objective evidence or reasoning.
In the coming days, we all will get a lesson on the meaning of the 14th Amendment, Section 1. This will be entirely because of the Trump Administration's appeal to the Supreme Court regarding the injunctions put on his Executive Order on "Brithright Citizenship".
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The first sentence (in BOLD) is the sum of the clause in question in the Executive Order.
What I am interested in with this short post is the 2nd sentence, clause 1 (highlighted in YELLOW)
What the heck are "privileges and immunities"? I mean, what are they, EXACTLY? If you do a Google search, you will find articles and academic papers on the subject, but no exhaustive list of them and lots of seemingly "fuzzy" examples and/or definitions. Seems like a catch-all provision.
In several things I have read, it is suggested that an excerpt from a Supreme Court case, Corfield vs Coryell in 1823, gives the best overall explanation. It appears to be the "gold standard" explanation used in many articles/reasearch papers:
""The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental, which belong of right to the citizens of all free Governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are it would, perhaps, be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the Government, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject nevertheless to such restraints as the Government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one State to pass through or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain notions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold, and dispose of property, either real or personal, and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State, may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental, to which may be added the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised. . . .
Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be – for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature – to these should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. . .
Is this concept important? I would say so. So important that the origin of the 3 words is a part of the US Constitution; (see HERE) HOWEVER, it has a different overall meaning in its intent and execution.
This seems appropriate given the "when you are a hammer, everything is a nail" mindset of The Dept of Govt Efficiency (DOGE).
Regardless of how one feels about what is going on with DOGE, this short video on the "Chesterton Fence" gives structure to one perspective for decision-making and the intended/unintended consequences of those decisions.
A good lesson for students as a cautionary tale of making hasty decisions, whether personal or those that affect a wider audience.
Here is an excellent explanation of the "Chesterton Fence".
The US economy is 33% larger than the EU economy. The population of the US is approx 345 million. The EU's population is approximately 450 million----23% larger than the US.
Calculate GDP per person for each geographic area
Calculate your US State GSP (Gross State Product) and Individual EU Country GDP, on a per-person basis
Make comparisons.
Questions: What do these calculations say about the distribution of that "product"? Does it matter?
 |
| Link to US Economy. Link to EU Economy |
Below are two clauses that contain words within a phrase that will be beaten to death in the coming months as the nation mulls the meaning of "Birthright Citizenship". Highlights are mine.
BOTH of these documents were proposed and discussed months apart in the SAME Congressional session by the SAME people in 1866. The 14th Amendment was proposed and passed but not ratified until 2 years later.
Why use certain words to form a phrase in one document and not the other? Why not just "copy and paste" the first phrase, that was cussed and discussed, into the second one (the 14th Amendment)?
Why the change in the construction of the phrase? There has to be a reason, right? Guessing we will hear lots of opinions in the coming days.
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"
Fourteenth Amendment (passed congress in 1866 and adopted in 1868)
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.