Opera singer, blogger, lawyer. You can reach me by email at david [at] bluemassgroup [dot] com.

Person #2: 4171 Posts

Recommended: 557 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. I think this is probably the closest to right (0 Replies)

    Got both orders correct. Only one on here to do it. Bravo, trickle-up!

  2. Did you mean to call it for Cruz? (1 Reply)

    He’s listed third, but has the highest number. Was 34 a typo? Or did you call him to win? Honor system. :)

  3. Yes and no. (0 Replies)

    While it’s of course true that Trump commands only a plurality of GOP voters, it’s a bigger plurality than anyone else, and the likelihood of anyone other than him who is polling halfway decently (i.e., Cruz or Rubio) dropping out any time soon is negligible. Sure, if Carson, Christie, Paul, Kasich, Jeb, and the rest of the bottom of the pack all drop out after Iowa or NH, and none of those voters goes to Trump, maybe Cruz or Rubio ends up looking a lot better. But, honestly, I think that’s unlikely. They’ve come this far; personal pride (to say nothing of their SuperPAC donors) won’t let them bail that quickly. More likely, they stick it out, keeping a fragmented field in place, with Trump continuing to lead. Remember, while he and Cruz are close in Iowa polling, Trump is way ahead practically everywhere else.

  4. Then again, (0 Replies)

    campaign finance regulation (what’s left of it) does contain many baffling and counterintuitive provisions.

  5. I can't imagine (2 Replies)

    why it wouldn’t be legal for two candidates to get together and talk about stuff, and for groups backing those candidates to then give money to a charity. But if the TV networks got involved, then complications would ensue because of equal time rules.

  6. Smart move. (1 Reply)

    Third parties (e.g., Green-Rainbow) always make the “let’s run for president!” mistake, thereby consigning themselves to perpetual 1% irrelevance. Much smarter to start local.

  7. If the 14th amendment (1 Reply)

    meant to redefine “natural born Citizen,” it surely would have used that language. It didn’t. Seems pretty clear that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to establish citizenship for certain classes of people, not to determine who can run for president (and, of course, they’re not the same thing).

    Re the British Empire, you should read McManamon’s WaPo piece. That’s her strongest argument for why someone like Cruz is *not* a “natural born Citizen.” Relatedly, as Cass Sunstein points out, “Cruz does not meet Blackstone’s test (which tracks 18th-century British law).”

  8. If the Globe is serious about solving this problem around here, (1 Reply)

    there is a very easy solution: reverse the outsourcing. Hire the delivery drivers they need as employees, pay them a fair wage, and give them benefits. Why is someone else – ACI, PCF, Maura Healey – always responsible for cleaning up the Globe’s mess?

  9. Well, to point out the obvious, (1 Reply)

    the 14th amendment was adopted quite a few years after the “natural born citizen” language was. And it’s a stretch to argue that the 14th amendment amended the “natural born” language by implication, since (a) it could have done so explicitly but didn’t, and (b) it uses quite different language. Needless to say, there are lots of people who are “citizens of the United States” but are not “natural born.”

  10. Agree on the auto bailout. (2 Replies)

    Great policy that worked and saved a lot of jobs and a major American industry. Exactly what government should do – step in in a smart way when things get bad, then get out. Romney’s opposition was so stupid.

    Disagree on cash for clunkers. Not sure that did much good.

  11. Well, (1 Reply)

    (a) consulates probably don’t have the greatest on-site medical facilities; (b) the rules for ambassadors are not analogous to US territories; and (c) whether a person born in a US territory is eligible for the presidency is, in fact, not resolved and not straightforward. The BU Law Review article linked in the post delves into the details, if you’re interested.

  12. There is a difference, though. (1 Reply)

    Colin Powell of course was exactly right in his response to the Muslim question – but he’s right legally (“no religious test”) as well as morally and ethically. In the case of Cruz, the “right” thing may actually not be the legal thing. We don’t have to agree that the clause as it currently stands is a good thing to also agree that, well, rules are rules.

  13. Yes. Territories are also in a somewhat grey area, (1 Reply)

    but the case for them is stronger than for another country. The only situation that seems directly analogous to Cruz is George Romney – born in Mexico to American parents – whose campaign for president never got very far.

  14. This is correct ... however, (1 Reply)

    it hasn’t happened yet, so it doesn’t solve Cruz’s 2016 problem.

  15. Terminology (0 Replies)

    Just to note a couple of terms: I agree that the contract (and that’s what it is) between the Globe and its subscribers is very likely a “contract of adhesion.” You can’t say to the Globe that you’d prefer to subscribe on terms different from what they offer. Or, you can, but they’ll laugh at you. However, I think it unlikely that the doctrine of unconscionability would be in play. Nor do I think it’s accurate to say that there’s any fiduciary relationship between the Globe and its subscribers. The relationship is an ordinary contractual one; nothing more.

    Carry on.

  16. Also, (1 Reply)

    the Supreme Court has placed limits on how far the federal government can go in enlisting the apparatus of state and local government in enforcing its laws.

  17. No way in the world would Warren (1 Reply)

    accept a VP offer. Nor do I think the moving-to-DC issue would be at all problematic. It’s inside baseball – nobody cares. Cheney’s “move” to WY was obviously a fraud, yet it had no impact.

  18. Also, (0 Replies)

    if Trump runs third party, the Dems win regardless of who is on either ticket.

  19. I think Fiorina is very unlikely for VP. (2 Replies)

    CA won’t be in play for the GOP regardless of who’s on the ticket, and her business record at HP is genuinely awful. Since that’s all she’s got to go on (quite different from Romney, for whom Staples was a small detail), she’s a weak candidate. If Cruz is the nominee, look for a VP pick who isn’t currently running (I don’t think he’ll pick Trump). Nikki Haley, maybe, or some other true believer.