Sunday, December 04, 2011

Guest Blogger Alena Shautsova: Bringing Your Family to Safety After You Have Received Asyum

I am pleased to welcome Alena Shautsova as a guest blogger on the That Lawyer Dude Blog. Alena is quite a good young lawyer. She is a leader among young lawyers in the NYS Bar Association and is the liaison from our state bar (Young Lawyers Section)YLS to the ABA's YLD(Young Lawyers Division) and she is also very active in our State bar's Special Committee on Immigration Representation Reform. She is Of Counsel to our Law Firm concentrating on International Law, Immigration and Civil Rights/Employment litigation. She is a rising star in our bar. I commend her work to you.

Can I Bring my Family to the US After I Received an Asylum Status?

A person granted asylum in the United States may bring his spouse and children (unmarried and under 21 at the time the USCIS receives the application for asylum) to the USA.

Such an application (FORM I-730) has to be filed within the two years after the grant of asylum. Failure to file within 2 years however, can be excused for humanitarian purposes.


If an asylee would like to bring his or her spouse to the US, the following conditions must be met:
An asylee must be the principle applicant: that means that he or she was the person who applied for asylum and was granted asylum. Received the asylum status though a relative does not make one eligible to bring over other family members as a Principle Applicant ;
An asylee must remain in asylee status or become a permanent resident;
An asylee was married to the spouse he or she is petitioning for before the asylee was granted asylum.

The same rules apply to spouses who live in the US, and who were not included in the application but became married to the asylum applicant before he or she received the asylum status.


If an asylee would like to bring his or her child to the US, the following conditions must be met:
An asylee must be the principle applicant: it means that he or she was the person who applied for asylum and was granted asylum, and that he or she did not received the status though a relative;
An asylee remains in asylee status or has become a permanent resident;
The child was conceived prior to the grant of asylum: (Note from That Lawyer Dude: in a rather cruel twist, the mother of the child, if not married to the asylee prior to the grant of asylum is not eligible for these benefits,she must allow the child to leave and continue to face the torture of her original nation-state. Further any children not of the aslylee must also be left behind. Maybe noone in Homeland Security has ever watched the movie "Sophie's Choice") ;
on the basis of an employment-based petition; or
A child was under 21 on the date the USCIS received application for asylum. (True for I-589 filed on or after August 6, 2002);
A child is unmarried.

And now for the Good News:

SPOUSES and CHILDREN Who Live in the United States and Were Included in the Application for Asylum:

Spouses and children who are with the applicant in the United States and were included in the applicant’s Asylum application will receive status automatically as derivatives of the main applicant.

Once again I want to thank Ms. Shautsova for her contribution and look forward to her next one. Also I encourage you to check out her blog at:

Monday, November 28, 2011

Kid Tweets That She Muscled Governor Brownback. Should She Be Made To Apologize? I Say YES!

Here is the story from the Associate Press:

"A Kansas teenager who wrote a disparaging tweet about Gov. Sam Brownback is rejecting her high school principal's demand that she apologize.

Emma Sullivan (twitter@emmakat988) told The Associated Press on Sunday that she's not sorry and an apology letter wouldn't be sincere.

The Shawnee Mission East senior was in Topeka last week when she sent a tweet from the back of a crowd of students listening to Brownback. It read: "Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person."

She actually made no such comment..."

Thereafter Brownback's Media hound found the tweet while searching the Governor's name. When she read the tweet, she contacted the school. The Principal got a call from the Governor's office, and had heart palpitations. He ordered the 18 year old woman to write an apology to help him with "damage control."

Our Question is: Should Ms. Sullivan apologize and for what should she apologize?

The kid claims to be liberal. Okay. She also claims not to like Governor Brownback. Okay again. She has decided not to write the apology...and every liberal and libertarian it seems supports her decision... NOT ME.

I am not being contrarian, I just think that there are some serious issues here that may not be affected by this young woman's right to free speech.

1. She was at a school function, representing her High School.
2. She lied, she said she told Brownback off, in person.
3. She tweeted, against the rules of the school at a time she was in class.

Now I want to make the following clear. If she had tweeted, on her personal twitter account at 3:30PM that she saw Brownback and wished she had told him he sucked, well then no problem.
That isn't what happened here. Here she was invited to meet with the Governor of her state.Not because she was someone who the governor would normally meet with, but because she was chosen by her school to go. While she was in the Governor's home or office, she took out her cellphone, and reported she told the man "He sucked" (Skip the fact that the statement is both juvenile and vulgar) in person. That was both against the rules about texting in class, AND, it was a lie.

Now imagine if she had said something dumber like she had assaulted or God forbid shot the man? Would that be okay?? What First Amendment line had been crossed? Isn't that still political speech? She is still saying she doesn't like the man. She is still lying. She would still be doing it on school time.

No, I don't agree that she is putting forth her opinion. I think she was going for a laugh, which is also okay as far as it goes, but the truth is, it was disrespectful not of Brownback (after all it goes with the territory of being a politician) but of the Office of the Governor. It was also a disrespect of her position as a campus leader of her school and all the people in it, including the few that may like the Governor, AND, she broke her school texting rule.

Now that doesn't mean she should have written a mea cupla, nor promise to help Brownback win his next campaign. It does mean that this college bound woman should show some understanding that: 1. The Governor of your state deserves your respect as the leader of the state and the choice of the people of your state; 2. You broke school rules and you are sorry for that, and; 3. That as a school leader, she has an obligation to represent her student body by asking smart questions, reporting accurately what was said and if she disagreed she had the right to state an opinion that criticized Brownback.

I am not asking her to agree with Brownback, but respect for our institutions is an important thing for schools to teach. The proper way to engage in debate is an important thing for leaders to learn. (Remember when some wingnut congressman yelled out at Obama during his State of the Union "you're a liar"? that kind of comment does not spur on the debate. It doesn't bring the other side into understanding your grievances. Saying Brownback "sucks" is just juvenile and frankly makes me think Ms. Sullivan is stupid. All I know is, she is entitled to an opinion, but you don't have the right to come into my house and crap on my carpet. Verbally, that is what she did. Her principal is right to demand an APPROPRIATE Apology. Not one that necessarily makes the Governor or his people happy, but one that indicates that the student understands where she went wrong.

Sexual abuse on College campuses, Internet Identity Theft Protection and a Few Silly Laws

Thanksgiving was really good. I had a great time hanging with the family. Of course between courses, we had a long discussion about the Penn State situation. Then just as the Penn State Drama begins to simmer down, (I will not rehash the last 250 or so comments, the most ever on this blog, just click the link above.) Syracuse University fires its long time Assistant Coach Bernie Fine. Now originally Syracuse put him on paid leave, but another person has come forward to announce he was molested by Fine and a tape of Fine's wife is offered where she admits she had sex with a the then 18 year old ball boy who claims Fine molested him until he was 28...,(really, 28? Okay that is going to provide some fodder for the defense.) This story is getting more sordid by the day, yet I am so very unimpressed with yet another major University refusing to let the legal system do its job and waiting before casting dispersions upon someone based on what so far appears to be fairly flimsy "facts." My big question is "How are these guys ever going to get a fair trial??"

OK onto another Scary College Professor story. This one involves Professor Grant D. Smith an eEngineering
Prof from Univ. of Utah who, while flying first class to Boston, takes out his laptop and begins to watch alleged Child Porn!! Fellow passengers in First Class take out their phones and take pictures of what he is watching, they then send those pics to a family member who then calls the cops to report Smith to the authorities, where he is arrested at Logan Airport. This ought to be interesting. There are like 10 crimes here. Smith possession of Child Porn, using a cell phone while in mid air (aren't you supposed to turn them off? I don't know any more I haven't flown in a long while but this article in Sunday's NY Times makes me think you still must power off.) Possession by the picture taker/witness, transmission in interstate commerce to the friend, the friends receipt and possession of child porn, his transmission to police of same. Interesting no?? Smith's defense team will not be allowed to have the photos to see if they are real or nor how they could have gotten on his laptop because the government restricts the access to these photos to include not allowing the defense to have them. Of course the Just-Us Dept. lawyers can have them anytime they want and send them where they want to "test them"etc.

So far it appears that the state is prosecuting, however I think this will soon be taken federal as the penalties for possession of child porn carry such harsh jail times that the possessor prosecuted by the feds, will face far more time than the person doing the molesting will as the molester only is prosecuted in state. Further proof that criminals have no lobby in Congress.
In this case, Smith faces an uphill battle given the photos taken, but then again, we should know not to jump the gun on these things. At least Univ of Utah has a sane approach. The Professor is placed on Admin. leave, until the case is completed, then if guilty he is fired. Seems reasonable, let the courts run their course then decide. Wish Penn State and Syracuse would have shown similar trust in the judicial system to let it do its job.
As for Smith, I would eschew the usual suspect criminal attorneys and get one that works significantly in Cyber-sex crimes. The area is becoming an important sub-specialty of Criminal Law and he will need that expertise to help him avoid a very VERY long jail term.

I remember sending my boys to college campuses in the summer to learn from the college coaches how to play soccer. We also sent them to scholastic camps at Northwestern, Princeton and to the World College in Italy to learn debate skills. I spoke to my sons about those experiences and about whether those were positive experiences. Both acknowledged they were. I asked about the relationships between the participants and the teachers and both said they saw nothing inappropriate, but that the opportunity for abuse is always there, especially in Summers on large campuses with few people around but with lots of buildings. I think if there is any fall out from these scandals, it has to be how parents are going to determine if they can trust the adults with whom they entrust their children. I have no answer, but I think we really need to look into the supervisory relationships, staffing, dorms, and other things before we send the kids into even the most prestigious opportunities.

In another Cyber/ Interent Crime related story, Yahoo provides us with the 25 dumbest passwords. If you use one of these passwords, you are either asking to get hacked or you are a moron. I mean really a password called "Password"? 123456? ABC123?? Who are you the Jackson 5??.

A strong password is made up of letters that do not spell out a word, and those letters should be a mix of Upper and lower case letters. Add some numbers and some signs ie: (!@!@#$#%$%^&). Hence Hb3%eI2* would be a fairly strong password. (Now PLEAASSSEEEE don't use that as a password...) Sigh...

Lastly I thought you would all get a kick from this story about how it is illegal to hail a cab for someone you aren't traveling with in NYC. It is a little known law but it provides a cop with probable cause to stop you and even if that PC escalates to search you. The law was aimed at the Squeggy men. There are some decent underpinnings to the law, but I think it lends itself to selective prosecution defenses. It might be a trite over-broad and vague too.

Anyway, flame away all you rush to judgment types out there. For those who have a few ideas on how to judge what camps and opportunities are safe for kids please leave a comment. For any one with ideas on Safety of Identity please share your knowledge.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

A Strong Defense of Joe Paterno: Why Paterno Was Morally & Ethically Right Not To Go Further in The Sandusky Sex Abuse Case

In the comments section of an article in an SI online blog post by Joe Posnanski, Columbia Univ. Adjunct Professor Scott Semer assails Joe Paterno for not taking greater actions in the Jerry Sandusky case (Link is to the actual Grand Jury Report. It is not for the squeamish.)

Semer rests his opinions as a lawyer and an Adjunct Professor of Transactional Law at Columbia Univ. in NYC. He takes what I believe is the majority opinion as to Coach Paterno's decisions which is that he did the least he could do to cover himself but owed a moral duty to do more.

I too am an attorney, a criminal defense lawyer, a former special prosecutor, and an adjunct professor of Trial Advocacy, and as to his judgment of Paterno I completely disagree with Professor Semer. I think Paterno did what was both morally and legally correct.

After contacting his chain of command superiors, he let them do their jobs. He knew there was a campus police force that investigates ( and prosecutes ) crimes on campus. He took whatever information he had to the head of his department. He took it to the person who is, for all intents and purposes, the police commissioner of a 256 person police force which according to the Campus website says: "(The University Police are) governed by a state statute that gives our officers the same authority as municipal police officers."

Paterno didn't just give his information to a superior, he turned it over to the highest ranking official in that police department. That man, PSU's VP of Business called in the ACTUAL WITNESS and spoke to him. In other words Paterno could see an investigation.

Suggesting Paterno should have then done more is both ridiculous and dangerous. Paterno should not have approached Sandusky,for fear he tip him off to the investigation; he should not have called University police after nothing happened because 1. A police department has a right to set its policing priorities. The Courts have consistently held that: it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
2. Once he reported the incident (and not having any information as to the progress of any investigation or the results thereof) Paterno had no other action he could reasonably take. If he pressed further or went public he risked opening himself and the University up to a law suit from Sandusky for libel , and that is assuming Paterno thought the grad assistant was both reliable and accurate. By that person's own admission he was distraught. He would be accused of trying to eliminate a potential competitor for his job. He would also call into question the safety of the campus and without any proof of his own on the allegations of another. Pattern is not a witness and arguably isn't even an "outcry witness." ( an outcry witness is one who verifies that another witness was so distraught that what they are saying must be true. To be an outcry witness the original witness must make his statement to you first and within a few minutes top hours after witnessing the incident. More than a couple of hours usually spoils the outcry's reliability. It gives the maker too much time to make up the testimony)
3. Assuming Paterno did go to the Chief of Police for the Penn State police department, the person under Gary Schultz, would that not be an act of insubordination? What if he were wrong? He would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams. His fellow coaches could not trust him, all of this without being an actual witness to anything. Taking one man's word against anothers.

Noone wants to see kids hurt, and I believe Coach Paterno heads that list. People suggesting he needed to do more either don't understand the law of criminal investigation, or have a different ax to grind ( like the head of the PA State Police who is grand standing in saying people have a greater responsibility than to report crime to the local Authority. He would be the first guy to defend a civil rights suit against his agency, (brought by a crime victim claiming that the failure to arrest caused her injuries) by invoking the Warren case.)

Paterno handled this exactly as he should have and to suggest otherwise is to use 20/20 hindsight to judge what was a fluid real time situation. I guess the path is always clear for the Monday Morning Quarterback.

Sunday, July 03, 2011

Happy Fourth of July 2011

Well in a few hours our nation celebrates its Independence from the Tyranny of the British Royal Crown. A few years after the decision to cede from British rule and after a war, we finally settled on a Constitution (there was a loose confederacy of states before that but we ultimately chose a federal system of government)to govern us. This Constitution tried to embody as much of the Declaration of Independence as it could, however the original document was thought lacking by the Declaration's author Thomas Jefferson, so he persuaded his friend John Madison to lobby through an embodiment of the Rights of Man our American Bill of Rights.

Jefferson wanted to preserve the fervor and feelings of his Declaration of Independence which begins with a statement about the self evident nature of the rights of man (meaning God Given rights) but he was well aware that tyrannizing politicians could do away with these rights as the King did to the Colonialists. Jefferson, wary of a big federal government wanted to limit the abuses that could become our government if Monarchists ever obtained an upper hand in our government.

In a large sense however, the Monarchists may have won if the goal was a large centralized government and a federal presence in the decisions of our daily lives such that the states have little to say about how they run themselves and we as citizens have little access to our Representatives. Our leaders appear only on news shows and before reporters who will report their views their ways and will not ask hard questions. Both major parties favor large government when it suits them and states rights when it doesn't.

For example Republicans favor states rights on Abortion and Immigration policy because they can't seem to get control of the federal government long enough to shove their view down our throats.On the other hand, they want a federal standard if a state doesn't follow their lead on an issue. In other words "States who agree with us get rights the rest of you be damned."

Democrats want state government to decide issues such as gay rights and gambling because they can't get the votes to work these out to their constituency favor on a national level. They favor state rights to decided what a marriage is, but would not allow states to determine what a "life" is.

I don't care where you stand on the issues of Abortion, gay marriage, Internet poker or the like. I care that things are actually interpreted by our Constitution with a view toward the Jeffersonian approach to our government. I'd also like to see a sense of shame when a party acts hypocritically.

Here is how some of this would shake out under my view of the world. Interstate commerce and Immigration policy are national in scope as are issues of Defense. These areas are reserved for Federal control. The Internet is also a federal issue, why? Because it is EVERYWHERE!

Health, Sex, Gambling, all criminal activity except for terrorism, treason, bank/mail/and wire fraud are state issues. There is an exception to that and that is that the Fraud must not just use the wires or mail to be committed, but must be committed against citizens or corporations on a national scope. Hence just because someone in NY calls someone else in NY to commit a fraud on a NY corporation, that use of the phone would not make for a federal case just because the phone line routed the call through a national grid of phone lines etc.

In my world, elementary education would be left up to the states, civil rights are federal. Secondary education (High school and up would be a mixture of Federal and State control depending on the issue however as somethings (like law or science) are things that need to be shared nationally we do need some national standards.

The feds could set standards that each state need to meet in the area of dealing with the imprisoned or the poor, but it would be up to the states to implement the standards. Economic Policy is a shared item as well. National Parks need to be part of a 3 way discussion Fed, State and local governments need to participate together. OTOH, the feds need to stay out of our homes, our hotel rooms our bank accounts and anything else that concern us as individuals.

Anyway, I could go on, and I will, but I want to know what you think of this whole concept of Independence. What does it mean to you, not personally, but as it relates to how we as citizens obtain a government that will uphold our right to live and conduct ourselves in the freest of fashions.

Edited to add a couple of links and clean up some spelling errors.

Monday, May 02, 2011

NEWSFLASH: Osama Bin Laden Killed by American Operatives in Pakistan: Other News of the Weekend.

Tonight the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (POTUS) announced that the CIA in co-ordination with the Pakistani Government located and killed OSAMA BIN LADEN Public Enemy number one (here and abroad.) That news is important and it is welcomed. I cannot say I am disappointed in anything other than the time it took to find him. May he never rest a day in eternity. I hope those 76 Virgin(ian)s he thought he would get are kicking the crap out of him right now in Hell. Congratulations to President Obama, Leon Panetta and the countless agents of the FBI CIA and of course of armed forces who have worked in hopes of this announcement, for bringing this terrorist to justice. No, it doesn't bring back our loved ones and it will never erase the misery of 9/11 or the days that followed it, but it does provide a sense of closure.

As for other News I found interesting, all of it pales in face of the news above. Just in case however you want to know what I thought was otherwise interesting, here are a couple of articles I wanted to write about:

I was going to use the blog tonight to talk about the futility of charging a nine year old child with murder for shaking a baby and how we need to separate the emotion of the parents losing an infant from the need to avenge a death with the "death" of another child when that child does something horrible.

I was also going to talk about the need for an "Expungement" Statute in NY given the fact that people arrested and convicted for even minor crimes can not get jobs anymore because of the Internet's ability to derail their job search with convictions. I was going to point to an article in the NY Times (semi subscription) which points out that people who have paid their debt to society long ago still cannot get work because of small or substantial indiscretion decades before.

Sunday, May 01, 2011

Happy Law Day!!

May 1st ought to be a National Holiday. It is the day that America "celebrates" Law Day. Now some of you are saying "Tony what is 'Law Day'?" Well here is an excerpt from the Presidential Proclamation:

At the core of our Nation's values is our faith in the ideals of equality and justice under law. It is a belief embedded in our most cherished documents, and honored by President Eisenhower when he established Law Day in 1958 as "a day of national dedication to the principles of government under law." Each Law Day, we uphold our commitment to the rule of law and celebrate its protection of the freedoms we enjoy.

This year, we pay tribute to one of America's Founders and our second President, John Adams. As a young attorney in colonial Massachusetts, John Adams was asked to represent a British officer and eight British soldiers charged with firing into a crowd and killing five men in the Boston Massacre. In the face of mass public outcry and at great personal risk, he accepted the case and showed the world that America is a nation of laws and that a fair trial is the right of all people.

President Adams' legacy of dedication to fairness and the rights of the accused has been carried forward by members of the legal profession for more than two centuries. It is championed by those who represent the accused and exemplified by women and men who are devoted to securing equal rights for all, both in America and around the world.

I am working today on a trial that will begin on May 11, 2011. I am working on it as a Assigned Panel Lawyer. It is the way I participate in a tradition of a government by Law and not by tyranny. I won't earn much, I don't want to. I want to win this case just like I want to win everyone of the ones for which I am highly paid. I want this client to receive the fair trial to which he is entitled with a qualified lawyer representing his rights. Hence I will leave this post and return to work. It is in fact the best way I can think of to honor President John Adams and those other men of Law who helped "give birth" to our Nation.
Happy Law Day to you all.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

It's that time again. WBCOOP IS BACK and BIGGER THAN EVER

Online Poker

I have registered to play in the PokerStars World Blogger Championship of Online Poker! The WBCOOP is a free online Poker tournament open to all Bloggers, so register on WBCOOP to play.

Registration code: XXXXXX 580695

That's right, in an effort to repeat endlessly the same thing and hope to get different results I am once again entering PokerStars World Blogger Championship of On-line Poker. This year with over Sixty ($60K)Dollars in free Spring Championship of On-line Poker entries available I am hoping to snag at least a couple of free entries. You can follow me online (send me an e-mail and I will give you my name on line) or you can wait to see if my futility at the on-line felt continues. Or better yet, if you have an established blog YOU CAN JOIN AND PLAY.

Oh yeah BTW if you are a law blogger and would like to play in an On-line "Home Game" with others who do the same send me a request and I will help you into our Lawyer home game league on Pokerstars.

Either way, wish me luck!!

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Nothing is more fun than a not guilty verdict... unless it is winning a poker tournament :)

I entered a poker tournament at Turning Stone Casino in upstate NY. It was part of their Winter Super-Stack tourney. I entered event number 4 the Knockout which is where you play but if you beat someone and they are knocked out of the tournament you get their "Knockout chip" which in this tournament was worth $100. I came in 8th and had the most knockouts!! First cash in a major tournament! Anyway here is a picture of me after winning. I am standing next to a giant gingerbread house with a silo made of Hersey Chocolates!! I was exhausted by happy. I am looking forward to playing again soon.

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

Judge Scalia: The Constitution Permits Sexual Discrimination

In an interview with the California Lawyer Magazine US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia declares that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on one's sex or sexual orientation.

Scalia is an "Originalist" is one who adheres to the words of the law and what the framers of the law meant when they wrote the words and the document was passed (by the electorate.

A fairly simple guide to Originalism and non-Originalist thinking can be found here

As a general fan of Scalia's I was asked if I agreed with his statement that the 14th does not encompass equal rights for women. I do not. That is because within the Originalist camp, there are two distinct branches. Scalia is an Intentionalist- Someone who interprets the Constitution according to the way he thinks the people who wrote it meant for it to be passed. This style of interpretation is popular among Neo-conservatives but a number of Classical liberals (libertarians) also hold the view.

I am a textualist. I believe the text means what the text says. I would probably be closer in vision to the late Justice Hugo Black who would decide 1st Amendment issues by reminding his colleagues that "Congress shall pass no law" meant NO. LAW. Textualists look at the words and give to them the meaning that they have. We do not believe that one can go back and decide what the collective voice of the people was except by using the words themselves.

Getting back to Scalia if he is correct that the people who framed the 14th amendment as well as the people who voted for it were not concerned with sexual equality or the equal treatment of those with non-traditional views of sexual orientation then in his view such discrimination would be as legally legislated as the banning of such discrimination.

I do not believe however, that the Constitution is limited by what the majority of people thought at the time of passage. I doubt we can truly discern that. I fall on the side that says read the statute literally as it is the only document we know was voted on. So in this case the 14th Amendment at least for me as a classical liberal means what it says:

Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Broken down: All persons (Male female black white other etc)born or naturalized in the United States (meaning born here not born here of documented or non documented aliens, BORN. IN THE USA. or given citizenship by us after birth somewhere other than IN THE USA),are Citizens of the US and the state where they reside (So the states do not have a choice in who they may bestow rights upon.)
No State (NO. STATE.)shall make or enforce any law (ANY LAW) which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person (ANY. PERSON)of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think Justice Scalia needs to rethink even his sense of Originalist thought. I do not believe that voters (who were mostly male at the time of the adoption of the amendment) did not think their wives or daughters were not persons or citizens. Whether they could conceive the law would someday be applied to women they could have understood it would. After all they failed to exclude them and they could have done so if they never wanted the amendment to apply to these women. I think that trying to apply what they would have decided to do had they issue been debated is just not possible. The original words speak for themselves Women were citizens. The end.

I expect to see Tea Party people try to limit the scope of the 14th amendment and claim to other conservatives that the original intent requires that the amendment not apply to citizenship of the American born children of undocumented aliens. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS. Further I can guarantee none of those types of people are smart enough to discern what Americans of 1865 thought. They have no idea what Americans today think I don't want them straining to go back 150 years.

Hattip: Huffington Post