Oh Baby

It’s the July episode of Law Talk and summer school has never been this much fun. On this episode: live reactions to the efforts to impeach Rod Rosenstein; judging the Brett Kavanaugh nomination; a breakdown of the Supreme Court’s Janus ruling; and the professors weigh in on the controversy over birthright citizenship. Come for the constitutional law, stay for Richard’s description of the weirdest cruise ever.

Subscribe to Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsors!

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 7 comments.

  1. Full Size Tabby Member

    On the preliminaries, apparently Troy and John are unfamiliar with river cruises, and that a river cruise is quite different from most ocean going cruises. On a river cruise, the boat is mostly your hotel as you move from city to city.

    Two years ago we took a Danube River cruise with a different company, but we also had the option for a tour of the same BMW factory. We declined that particular tour, as we had previously toured the BMW South Carolina factory. Mrs. Tabby and our daughter, neither of whom are car people, found the factory tour fascinating. As Richard says, it’s a very choreographed operation that has a certain beauty to it.

    You can have some very interesting experiences on a river cruise. On a Mississippi River cruise about 4 years ago we visited a maximum security prison. One of the tour options was to visit Louisiana’s Angola State Penitentiary, where some very successful prison reforms have been implemented. I got to sit with one of the prisoners on top of a beautiful wagon (made by the prisoners) being pulled by gorgeous draft horses cared for by the prisoners.

     

    • #1
    • July 26, 2018, at 5:26 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  2. ctlaw Coolidge

    The strange thing about the structure of the 14th amendment is that the term “and subject to the jurisdiction…” also modifies “naturalized”.

    How can someone be naturalized without being subject to the jurisdiction?

    • #2
    • July 26, 2018, at 7:39 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. Guruforhire Member

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    The strange thing about the structure of the 14th amendment is that the term “and subject to the jurisdiction…” also modifies “naturalized”.

    How can someone be naturalized without being subject to the jurisdiction?

    Having subsequently established permanent residency elsewhere probably.

    • #3
    • July 26, 2018, at 9:29 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. ctlaw Coolidge

    Guruforhire (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    The strange thing about the structure of the 14th amendment is that the term “and subject to the jurisdiction…” also modifies “naturalized”.

    How can someone be naturalized without being subject to the jurisdiction?

    Having subsequently established permanent residency elsewhere probably.

    No.

    The sentence reads: “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.” Look at the last word.

    • #4
    • July 26, 2018, at 9:36 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  5. Petty Boozswha Member

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Guruforhire (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    The strange thing about the structure of the 14th amendment is that the term “and subject to the jurisdiction…” also modifies “naturalized”.

    How can someone be naturalized without being subject to the jurisdiction?

    Having subsequently established permanent residency elsewhere probably.

    No.

    The sentence reads: “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.” Look at the last word.

    It meant that individual states could not deny state citizenship to someone who moved from another state after being naturalized.

    • #5
    • July 26, 2018, at 4:33 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  6. Petty Boozswha Member

    I agree with Richard but would go further. I believe this is the only issue I’ve ever disagreed with John Yoo on. Lincoln said since the world is new we must think anew and act anew, we must disentrall ourselves of old notions. Cases decided in 1898 about a racist exclusion treaty with the Emperor of China should not bind today’s Court. Today 99% of the illegal immigration coming across the Southern Border is, to some minor extent, a declaration of reconquista and repudiation of American sovereignty, similar to children of occupying soldiers being granted citizenship. Gallup polls in Mexico have consistently shown that over two thirds of the Mexican public believe, or have been taught, that the USA has no right to enforce any bar on Mexican immigration; the new Presidente, AMLO, stressed this during his campaign that illegal entry to the US was a human right.

    We also live in an age when immigration without assimilation is considered a right, where maternity tourism is a thriving industry, and where having an American passport is considered the ultimate flag of convenience, totally divorced from any sense of commitment to American ideals or principals. It’s a problem that should be addressed by law.

    • #6
    • July 26, 2018, at 4:45 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  7. Wolverine Coolidge

    Rich left me hanging with two unanswered questions:

    1) Why was Clement Haynesworth’s Senate rejection so egregious

    2) Why did he think Bork went off deep end after his Senate rejection. I read Bork’s books and articles after his Senate rejection and found nothing illogical about any of it.

    • #7
    • July 28, 2018, at 3:20 AM PDT
    • 1 like