Stick to baseball, 1/16/16.

I traveled to Puerto Rico this week to see the MLB draft showcase in Cayey, featuring likely top-5 pick Delvin Perez, so I haven’t written much anywhere, with just one Insider post, on the Wei-Yin Chen and Gerardo Parra signings. Klawchats will resume this upcoming week, and no, I haven’t seen this week’s episode of Top Chef yet. I did finish The Executioner’s Song on the flight home, and that has to be one of the most addictive books I’ve ever read.

And now, the links…

Comments

  1. I’m not a lawyer, but I have studied a lot of constitutional law both in undergraduate and graduate schools, and while I don’t entirely agree with the argument that the Supreme Court should not be involved in deciding Constitutional eligibility, Prof. Amar is absolutely dead on with the definition of “natural born citizen.” In case you weren’t aware, he’s generally considered the foremost Constitutional law professor in the country, and one of his books is assigned to virtually every 1L and/ 2L con-law class.

    • I didn’t know who Prof. Amar was, so that’s a bit of a relief (that I wasn’t linking to someone out on the fringe, that is).

  2. Also not a lawyer, but I understood that the citizenship rule was basically “jus soli or jus sanguinis” (right of soil or right of blood).

    While in college in the late 90’s, my sociology professor told us he was a tutor for the Nebraska football team while he was working on his PhD in 1994 and 1995. Not long after one of Christian Peter’s run ins with the law, he talked to a couple of us after class. He told us the coaching staff, including Tom Osbourne, covered up so many crimes the players committed, including Lawrence Phillips. I wish I could remember specific examples, but they were pretty shocking then.

    An interesting account about the experiences of being poor from a student that went to Harvard, including dealing with PTSD while there.

    http://observer.com/2016/01/poor-and-traumatized-at-harvard/

  3. The whole Ted Cruz birther thing is a fascinating example of conservative talking points boomeranging on themselves. Quite frankly, there is no real argument that Cruz is not an American citizen – Prof. Amar is, of course, spot on. As much as I loathe Cruz, this “controversy” is a big nothingburger.

    The closest support I’ve seen that Cruz is not a citizen comes from Laurence Tribe. However, despite reports that “quote” Tribe saying that Cruz is not an American citizen, he said no such thing. Rather, Prof. Tribe has simply noted that Cruz’s originalist philosophy would disqualify him from running for president.

    I guess all of this is to say – in the end, we’re all doomed.

  4. As an immigration lawyer with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, I can confirm that there are two ways to be born a US citizen and meet the requirement of being a natural born citizen. One, jus soli, is to be born in the US. The other, jus sanguinis, is to be born to at least one USC parent who meets the residency requirements to transmit citizenship set by Congress in the INA, our principal immigration statute.

  5. The thing that makes me laugh about the GOP is everything is self inflicted. How long did Cruz go after Obama over being born in Kenya? And now it’s biting him in the ass. It shouldn’t, but it is because of what he’s said in the past.Had the GOP not made this an issue in the first place, (and remember-McCain was born in Panama) this wouldn’t even be a story. Some of these guys are so short sighted they are clueless when it comes to the end game.

  6. Bummer to see that my beloved alma mater got into some junk science.

  7. I’m not a lawyer, but I do co-author a political blog, and my partner in the venture is an American expat (he teaches in the Netherlands) who has dealt with this issue firsthand. He was able to convey citizenship to his son, but not to his daughter, due to the elapsed time between his relocation and the two respective births. He (and I) have written a fair bit about this. And from that vantage point, I can say that Amar’s piece is very good, but he elides over the very crux of the issue in a single sentence:

    “His mother also apparently met the relevant rules of extensive prior physical presence.”

    In fact, this is the only salient issue. As long as Cruz’s mother met the residency requirements, then he’s a citizen. But at the moment, this has not been demonstrated. It will require report cards, utility bills, etc. that cover a 14-year period. Amar declares that this requirement has been met, but offers no evidence that is the case. Note that I am not a Cruz “birther,” and I suspect that his mother can/did meet the requirements, but it remains the case that we do not know for certain at this point.

    I will also say that Amar’s interpretation that “the people who can elect whom they want” is novel, but does not stand up to scrutiny. If the rules in the Constitution don’t actually matter, then there are no presidential term limits, either. Further, the founders never intended that to be the case. One of the reasons they created the Electoral College was to stop the people from electing someone who was not legally or otherwise qualified to be president.

  8. Note that he suggests that Congress could overrule a non-legit candidate, but the legal basis for that is very, very shaky, and besides Congress would never do that…

  9. Here, Keith, open your mind and read a few conservative sites for once instead of Think Progress. Maybe you’ll have a different view on the “striking editorial” re Cruz and the falsity of the argument. Stick to baseball.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/the-brooks-brutalism.php

    • I’ve been reading sites like that and the always wonderful Little Green Footballs (absolutely essential in the run-up to the 2004 election) for ages. So, maybe don’t be an asshole when commenting here, okay?

    • I love how Brooks questioning Cruz’s sincerity, given the conflict between his words and the teachings of the faith he tirelessly invokes, constitutes a “hatchet job”. If anything the article you linked perfectly illustrates why there is no room for moderates in the current incarnation of the GOP. Though I think Cruz or Trump would make a good nominee as the GOP desperately needs a Barry Goldwater moment to restore some semblance of moderation to their rhetoric.

  10. A vulgar ad hominem attack? I was posting a link which provided a different view…one which likely would lead one to think the opposite of the Brooks NYT column. Your vulgar ad hominem attack seems a bit over the top, no?

  11. (And the “stick to baseball” wasn’t a dig – it was an attempt at a joke since that was the title of your post. Maybe it didn’t work but that was where I was going.)

    • Then I apologize for my reaction. I indeed thought you were trying to insult me with that phrase, coupled with the “open your mind” bit. I’m sorry for misunderstanding.

      The link you sent was interesting, and probably exceeds my legal knowledge, but one point I can’t quite get around is its emphasis on Haley knowing or understanding the consequences of a “third strike.” We can’t possibly assume that, but the author of that post insists it has to be the case. Brooks – and I’m no real fan of his work, BTW – correctly emphasizes the punitive nature of Cruz’s actions, which seem geared toward retribution rather than rehabilitation. If you agree that that’s accurate, it conflicts with the teachings of Jesus Christ that Cruz and his base claim to espouse.

  12. Re: MSG. I’m one of many who is allergic to the additive, which is a migraine trigger for me. Outside of my personal issues with MSG, there is a big problem with companies using deceptive terms in its place, like the ever present “artificial flavors.” My issue isn’t with MSG (well, in a literal sense it is), it is with the transparency issues with it. If restaurants and food suppliers properly label the presence of MSG, I see no problem with its use.

    • Sure and I agree 100% that it should be on the label. I don’t like seeing “corn sugar” instead of HFCS or “evaporated cane juice” instead of FUCKING WHITE SUGAR YOU IDIOT.

  13. Jeremy, I am a lawyer, and just for the record, not that I’m a constitutional scholar, I’ve never heard of the Amar. I also didn’t read the article, but the Supreme Court certainly SHOULD have the final word on what a “natural born citizen” is, if the issue comes through the courts. However, from my limited study of the Constitution and reading the opinions of constitutional scholars, anybody who has one parent who is an American citizen, no matter where he or she exits the womb of his or her mother probably qualifies as a natural born citizen. In any case, Cruz would be a disaster because I believe he would be and that makes it a fact. 😉

    Off topic here, but I can’t help but wonder if that would also apply to somebody who was adopted. I’m sure we’ll be discussing the issue in 40-50 years when a Pitt-Jolie takes a stab at the White House.