I make those Two Party Opera comics
James Buchanan was the Minister to Russia for about 18 months between 1832-1833, where he quickly learned that privacy was non-existent when he found out Russian servants were going through his official documents. Any correspondence back to the United States was handed directly to American ship captains and warned that any responses should not “say anything which would be offensive to the Government. They are not very delicate about opening letters here.”
I do think the timing is suspect, but I think it’s more likely that the man is sick and not ready to announce it yet. There were rumors that he was going to retire last year, and to do it now, it just seems like it wasn’t necessarily in his control, heath-wise.
Thank you, Andy! Glad you enjoyed it
Yea I conflated it with the Smith case. Lack of sleep will do that. Bleh.
Douglas cited almost all of the 4th Amendment in the opinion. I’ve just got space limitations.
And this is more of less my goal of this week. I’m trying to stay away from editorializing these cases, but just 1) present the logic behind these decisions and 2) show just how integrated the 14th amendment is to our everyday lives, whether one agrees with what it says or not, and to keep that in mind as the make of the Supreme Court changes.
I hope to bring this point home tomorrow.
It’s worth noting that another subject of debate about this case is the meaning behind the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which the court found to mean that the person would be subject to U.S. Law as a citizen, which was decided that it would exclude children of ambassadors and foreign ministers.
Gator, the difference seems to just be semantics, then. Would it be better if it said “They passed the text knowing it was vague” instead of “text was kept purposely vague?” Because one of those statements is true.
My 9/13 ratio also comes from the Federalist Papers
The second one is consistent with your ideology, I assume.
Ironically, the case that established judicial review was one that he was directly involved in, Marbury v. Madison.
I will say that he also wrote that the amendment process shouldn’t kick off into high gear until after the Constitution could act “as is” for a little while, to see how it would hold up as a governmental framework.