or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by NoVaguy

I think the more interesting statement is that you think that it "could only lead to that conclusion". Bubble indeed.
If you were in favor of a textualist or strict constructionist approach, the law passed in the 21st century would be irrelevant as to the interpretation of an 18th century constitutional phrase.
To meet the natural born requirement, Its probably enough that at least one parent is an US citizen, or to be born on US soil. There's no explicit military abroad exception in the constitution but it seems fair, if not strictly textualist, to interpret that within the phrase naturally born, especially if you extend it to include Cruz's situation.
Maybe obvious to you, but not obvious to others such as the EU. And there are better things for the US to expend their diplomatic resources with the EU on, such as dealing with Russia.
Israel needs the USA more than the USA needs Israel; as one example, they need the USA to run interference for them to stop EU sanctions (about a third of their exports go to the EU). I don't understand what Netanyahu is thinking on running a no Palestine ever platform, as Obama's position on the 2 state solution has been the official USA policy for decades.
Why dont you read the article I, section 6, clause 1, aka the speech or debate clause.Its generally taken to be an near absolute privilege. Most of the actions taken by Congress in the CAAA would fall within the privilege. Tim Cotton's letter, while I agree it should not fall w/i the Logan Act and that the Logan Act has serious 1st amendment speech and 5th amendment due process issues, doesn't fall within the privilege.Now, had Tim Cotton distributed the letter by...
Well, the "treaty" cuts my way, not yours. Neither the CAAA or Iran involves a treaty in the Constitutional sense. The CAAA was congressional legislation and Reagan wasn't negotiating any treaty with South Africa.I don't the Logan act is implicated. I think Reagan's veto was stupid and wrong, as was Cotton's letter, but that's a policy judgment.As for Joe Biden and other congessional members circa 1980's, I'll point out one more distinction. A speech in congress, as...
I wasn't commenting on whether it was meddling*, rather on whether it was "Joe Biden" led.*Again, was it meddling? There was the perception that the Reagan White House wasn't doing anything and was fractured on this issue and due to Iran Contra. As further speculation, GHWB** immediately supported the CAAA when he came to office, whereas the decision to veto the CAAA was essentially made by Donald Regan and Pat Buchanan.I'm also going to tread lightly on another issue,...
That's a terrible analogy. There was a very reasonable perception* that Reagan was not really negotiating with South Africa. The Comprehensive AntiApartheid Act was a GOP bill in the Senate. The primary sponsor was Dick Lugar (GOP-IN), and Wikipedia indicates that the other sponsors were William Roth (GOP-DEL) and Mitch McConnell (GOP-KY). It passed the GOP controlled Senate 84-14. In the veto override vote that passed the Senate with over 70 votes, 31 GOP senators...
I wish they didn't.
New Posts  All Forums: