Author Archive: Glenn Reynolds

BEFORE THE ADVENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AMERICA WAS AMONG THE MOST LITERATE NATIONS ON EARTH:

EVERYTHING. IT SAYS EVERYTHING.

UPDATE (From Ed): At X, Grok auto-translates the above text as “It seems that there was indeed a fairly large-scale demonstration in Washington by anti-Iranian regime, pro-Trump Iranians. However, compared to the ‘No Kings’ demonstration, the media has hardly reported on it at all. It’s the same everywhere, huh.”

WHAT IF THE GREENLAND CAPER WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT SMOKING OUT HOW WILLING — AND EVEN EAGER — OUR “ALLIES” WERE TO GO TO WAR WITH US?

JOHN ONDRASIK BRINGS THE HAMMER OF TRUTH:

CORRECTING THE IGNORANT:

To be fair, Ms. Watson is a reporter for CBS, so you can’t expect her to know much. Worse yet, she likes candy corn. No, really, check her profile page. So what can you expect?

RIGHT?

FLASHBACK: Remembering the 2002 AOL/InstaPundit merger April Fool. The only April Fool I’ve done here, and probably the only one I ever will do, but it was fun — complete with a changed header to AOL/InstaPundit — and a surprising number of people bought it.

I would have enjoyed owning a Boeing, I think.

#RESIST:

They need a revolución.

OPEN THREAD: Excel.

RANDY BARNETT: Trump Is Right on Birthright Citizenship: The 14th Amendment’s authors would exclude illegal and visiting aliens from U.S. ‘jurisdiction.’

The clause grants citizenship to persons who meet two conditions: birth in the U.S. and being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. The dispute is over the meaning of the latter term. Everyone agrees that it excludes at least three classes: children of diplomats, of soldiers from an invading army, and of American Indians maintaining tribal relations. In each of these categories, the status of the child depended on the status of the parent.

The constitutional debate is about the original concept embodied in the text that explains these exclusions and whether that concept embraces or excludes children born on U.S. soil to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily in the U.S. The court has never squarely addressed this question.

Before Mr. Trump’s executive order, what originalist scholarship existed on the original meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” was sporadic and lightly tested if at all. The past year has produced an explosion of originalist scholarship on both sides. The justices are now in a good position to decide which side has presented the stronger originalist case. . . .

Sen. Lyman Trumbull (R., Ill.), who managed the Citizenship Clause in the upper chamber, explained that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else,” whether to a tribe or a foreign power. Rep. John Bingham (R., Ohio), the moving force behind the 14th Amendment, used the same framework, referring after ratification to persons born in the U.S. “and not owing allegiance to any foreign power.” These statements, and others Mr. Lash identified, demonstrate how leading Republicans explained the concept the text was meant to capture: birth plus full political membership.

Opponents of this interpretation rely heavily on a statement by Sen. Jacob Howard (R., Mich.) that the clause would “include every other class of persons” besides children of diplomats. In isolation, Howard’s statement does support the challengers’ understanding. But it can’t be taken literally; otherwise it would include tribal Indians. Howard later said that the relevant “jurisdiction” was the “full and complete jurisdiction” that tribal Indians lacked. Republicans didn’t maintain that tribes lay wholly beyond federal power, but that tribal members maintained an undissolved allegiance to a separate sovereign political community.

Read the whole thing.