I was on a conference call organized by the Immigration Policy Center titled "The 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship, Discussing the History and Ramifications of Amending the Constitution." Good background link here. The panelists were Michele Waslin, Senior Policy Analyst, Immigration Policy Center (Moderator), Margaret Stock, Attorney and Retired Lieutenant Colonel, Military Police Corps, US Army Reserve, Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center, Eric Ward, National Field Director, Center for New Community, and Bill Hing, Professor of Law at University of San Francisco.

It was a good overview and the discussion was both policy based and a review of the relevant law. On the case law, of course the starting point is the 1897 case, US v. Wong Kim Ark. Also discussed was the legislative history of the 14th Amendment. A good article on that is here. I asked two questions - one was about Wong Kim Ark and its discussion of birthright citizenship as, not only being enshrined by the 14th Amendment, but also by the Constitution itself. To wit, the birthright citizenship language of the 14th Amendment was only necessary because Dred Scott put it in doubt. My second question was directed at some misinformation on the subject disseminated last night on Keith Olbermann's show by Professor Jonathan Turley:

Busy day.

Open Thread.

The ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Treasury Department's regulations preventing them from filing a lawsuit on behalf of the father of American-born al Qaeda inspirational leader Anwar al Awlaki challenging the U.S. policy of targeting people like al Awlaki for assassination. (More here.)

If that sounds like a convoluted sentence, it is, but it's complicated. Put more simply: One of the agencies in the Treasury Department is OFAC, the Office of Foreign Asset Control. They keep lists of certain people, businesses and groups, in categories like "specially designated narcotics traffickers" (SDNTK)and "specially designated nationals and blocked persons (SDN)which includes "global terrorists" (SDGT.)

Once a name goes on one of the lists, it is a federal crime to conduct any business on the listed person's behalf or take any money from the person or someone acting for them -- unless you apply for and are granted a license to do so. (There's also a list of "Significant Narcotics Traffickers" created by executive order of the President under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act and many other kinds of lists.)

This applies to lawyers who want to represent a listed person in or out of court. You can't provide legal services until you get a license. [More...]

Plans to build a Mosque near the site of the former WTC cleared a final hurdle today. The ACLU says:

We congratulate the Landmarks Preservation Commission for promoting our nation's core values and not letting bias get in the way of the rule of law. "The free exercise of religion is one of America's most fundamental freedoms. For hundreds of years, our pluralism and tolerance have sustained and strengthened our nation. On 9/11, religious extremists opposed to that very pluralism killed 3,000 Americans. Those fanatics would want nothing more than for our nation to turn its back on the very ideals that make this country so great.

The ACLU calls the planned center a "monument to pluralism, symbolic of America's commitment to religious freedom."

I agree the Islamic Center has every bit as much of a right to be built on the site as any other kind of building. To reject it because of 9/11 is to further the very prejudices we should be striving to overcome. [More...]

TPM:

[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid (D-NV) quoted extensively from a column written by Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson on Friday. Reid read this portion from the podium of his press conference:

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people "born or naturalized in the United States" for a reason. They wished to directly repudiate the Dred Scott decision, which said that citizenship could be granted or denied by political caprice.

They purposely chose an objective standard of citizenship -- birth -- that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction leaders established a firm, sound principle: To be an American citizen, you don't have to please a majority, you just have to be born here.

Then Reid said of Republicans pushing the issue, "They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles."

Well played Mr. Leader.

Speaking for me only

The GOP continues to reveal itself:

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told The Hill on Monday that Congress �ought to take a look at� changing the 14th Amendment[. . . .] McConnell�s statement signals growing support within the GOP for the controversial idea, which has also recently been touted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)In an interview, McConnell said the 14th Amendment provision should be reconsidered in light of the country�s immigration problem.

To refresh our memories, let's look at the first line of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is what Republicans are focused on now (they hate the whole thing of course):

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.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in July 1868, by the Reconstruction Congress, and the line quoted above was intended to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision which addressed this question:

For cycling fans, big news today - 3 time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador has signed with Saxo Bank (new sponsor next year) head Bjarne Riis' team.

Open Thread.

Last week I wrote about the factually inaccurate assumption underlying Chris Bowers questioning of Dem opposition to the GOP's 2005 Nuclear Option.

My first point was that Bowers was just wrong on his facts. And now no one, not even Chris himself, disputes that.

The second point argued is that the filibuster is more harmful to progressive policy than to "conservative" policy. See Scott Lemieux and Kevin Drum. I think that is largely wrong. For the past 30 years, the essential progressive fight has been the preservation of progressive policy achievement. The filibuster has been very useful in this fight. But I think there is a larger point being missed (that actually cuts both ways in this discussion.) Kevin Drum writes:

In a strange reply to Atrios's point that if liberal enthusiasm is important to Democratic political success then maybe Dems should put some effort in sparking liberal enthusiasm, Jon Cohn writes:

Of course, liberals shouldn't be enthusiastic about the Democrats, let alone support them, if they think Democrats aren't fighting for liberal causes and at least having some success. But that's a different argument.

(Emphasis supplied.) How is that a different argument exactly? Cohn was berating "liberals" for not clapping loud enough -- Cohn is happy so they should be too. Atrios' point is that if liberals not clapping loud enough is a political problem for Dems, then maybe, just maybe, Dems (and Cohn) should be thinking about why liberals are not clapping loud enough and start to think about things they could do that would make them clap louder. Here's a tip - berating them as stupid and foolish for not clapping loud enough is not a good strategy.

Speaking for me only

The absurd ruling (PDF) by Virginia federal judge Henry Hudson denying the United States' motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Virginia AG Ken Cucinelli attacking the recently enacted health care bill (specifically the individual mandate) is most notable for its reasoning for why Virginia has standing to challenge the law. Here is how Ilya Somin, who is sympathetic to the ruling, puts it:

Hudson rejected the federal government�s claim that Virginia did not have standing to challenge the mandate. Although states are generally not allowed standing to litigate the interests of their citizens, Hudson argues that Virginia has standing because the federal health care bill conflicts with a recently enacted Virginia state law, the Health Care Freedom Act. This, he argues, is enough to give Virginia standing [. . .]

If this ruling is eventually upheld (it won't be imo, if the district court decides in Virginia's favor), here is a great new vehicle for challenging federal actions - states could pass laws that expressly conflict with federal policies they don't like and then take the United States to court and challenge the constitutionality of the federal actions. See Jack Balkin. Yes, it's stupid. But it is rather useful, for it really places in stark relief what conservatives are about - reversing by judicial activism settled law regarding the power of the federal government. Yes, they want to refight not only the New Deal but the Civil War as well. A smart and effective Democratic Party would make hay from this.

Speaking for me only

I still haven't seen the news today, but it's time for the finale of The Bachelorette. I'm going offline so I don't read the ending before it airs here. If you want spoilers, I have them galore over at Popleft. (Don't read if you don't want to know the likely ending.) I will say that Mike Fleiss & Co. did a masterful job this season of preventing anyone from being completely certain, despite the plentiful spoilers, until this weekend.

Update: Ali made a great choice, they seem really happy. I liked her better tonight than I did all season.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

I'm off to the jail and then have motions to write.

Update: the iPad on 3G gets great reception in a cement visiting room Who would have thought it? Wireless never works this good, if at all.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Sam Adam, Jr., attorney for Rod Blagojevich, is a bundle of nerves. He's not eating or sleeping, waiting on the 12 people who will decide his client's fate.

"It's not easy," he says. "You hope and you believe there are people in that jury room fighting for your side, but the truth is that you really don't know. And that's what makes it so hard."

Jury deliberations resume today.

Travel day for me.

Open thread.

Charlie Sheen and the Prosecutor's Office have been working all month at arriving at a new plea agreement in his domestic violence case from Christmas.

Given the press release sent to the media by the Pitkin County Sheriff's Office (see below), it seems Monday is the day all will be resolved.

Charlie, wisely for someone with his background, had been trying to stay off probation. He offered to do 30 days in the Pitkin County Jail in Aspen on work release as a sentnce to the misdemeanor he would be pleading guilty to. That fell apart.

Reportedly, Charlie is now willing to do probation, as he wants more parenting time with his kids and to get back to work at his TV show.[More...]