January 19, 2008
South Carolina Thread - Updated: McCain wins
Sounds like we might be waiting a bit on a declared winner between John McCain and Mike Huckabee in South Carolina. In the meantime, two quick thoughts from the exit poll on questions we've been talking about recently.
1) How is Mike Huckabee doing among non-Evangelicals?
Not good. Among "White Evangelical/Born-Again" voters who made up 55% of the exit poll, Huckabee trounced McCain 43% - 27%. But Huckabee was crushed among those voters not in that demographic: he finished tied for 3rd with Fred Thompson at 16%, behind McCain and Mitt Romney. Lesson: every state since Iowa has confirmed that Mike Huckabee's base isn't growing, even when he campaigns hard on the ground like he did in South Carolina.
2) How is McCain doing among conservatives?
Again, not good. Huckabee beat him 35% - 26% in that group, even with McCain running as the closest thing there was to an Establishment GOP candidate in South Carolina. He had collected support from a fairly broad array of local Republican officials, plus counted a nice base among the state's notable veteran population (in which he beat Huckabee 36% - 29%). Once again, however, the strength of McCain's vote is coming from moderates and liberals who are backing him over Huckabee 51% - 21% and 47% - 20% respectively. Lesson: John McCain still has serious problems with the conservative base.
[UPDATE: figures and related text in above paragraphs corrected following update of CNN's exit poll, which slightly altered the initial numbers].
All that being said, my gut says McCain pulls this victory out. That will leave Huckabee and Thompson seriously wounded given the importance of South Carolina to both their candidacies. Whether they drop out right away or not is another matter - Huckabee in particular has reasonable cause to stay in the race until a nominee is firmly decided.
It also means as all eyes shift to Florida that McCain and Rudy Giuliani are likely to be fighting over a lot of the same moderate and/or national security conservative votes. But, more on that later...
6:21 pm UPDATE: And the networks are finally starting to call it...McCain it is. Indisputably a big victory for him after losing Michigan on the 15th and after losing South Carolina in such high profile fashion to Bush in 2000. Note the probable assist from Thompson, who decided to actually try campaigning with enthusiasm the last couple weeks, thereby peeling off enough conservative support from Huckabee to given his friend McCain a valuable win.
UPDATE II: If Rudy Giuliani ever had a chance to prove his "Florida, Florida, Florida" strategy right he's got a perfect chance. He finished 6th in Iowa, tied for 4th/last in Wyoming, 4th in New Hampshire, 6th in Michigan, 6th in Nevada, and 6th in South Carolina. If he pulls out a win in Florida now he'll turn conventional wisdom not only upside down, but also inside out and on its head.
As for Florida itself, watch for McCain to try to ride the mantle of front-runner, for Rudy to talk tax cuts - with a dash of 9/11 - round the clock, and for Romney to latch onto the economy like a bulldog, just as he did in Michigan.
The only other variable is whether or not the conservative establishment finally attempts to rally around a single candidate. Some corners of the media and punditocracy haven't noticed, but the bulk of leading talk radio hosts have been increasingly flaying McCain - and to a lesser degree Huckabee - the last couple weeks. The list includes Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, and Glenn Beck. Michael Medved might be the only national talker defending McCain (though I'm open to correction on that in the comments).
If that trend elevates, or even continues, it will be a brake on McCain making any as-yet-unachieved progress in attracting conservatives to his cause. That and the McCain campaign might not want to have televised rallies with supporters holding "Make CLIMATE CHANGE a Priority" placards like they did in the last 24 hours in South Carolina. He is running for the Republican nomination. They might want to remember that.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 19, 2008
05:13 PM | Email This
First of all Huckabee is nothing at all like a "social conservative" in his personal or political life. George Bush is far more like a true conservative Christian than Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee is a big time lib who's support of agricultural price supports and subsidies appeals to rural farmers seeing a handout (as in Iowa).
This year, there is no real "social conservative" candidate in the Republican field. And that's a product possibly of George Bush being so successful in making parts of their agenda part of the mainstream (outlawing late term abortions). So, "social conservative" is now part of the status quo -- they don't need an extremist to represent their position, just someone who will maintain the status quo, as is. It could just as well be Giuliani, as Pat Robertson decided.
I think that Ron Paul could be considered a social conservative in his personal and his political lives.
He is pro-life.
He has been married to one woman for over 50 years.
He is a church-going Christian.
He voted NO on the Defense of Marriage Act because regulating marriage is not authorized in the federal Constitution. This would have left the fight to each individual state, as the Constitution requires.
3. Bruce: nah. The Constitution requires that the federal government uphold the rights of individuals. In order to do that, it has to define who HAS such rights. This needs to be decided federally.
4. I think SC whittles the Republican field down to three contenders--Romney, McCain and Giuliani. I was rooting for Thompson, but it just didn't happen. Florida is now the important state to see what happens with Thompson's and Huckabee's votes going forward. There is proably a good possibility that Thompson will drop out. Huckabee may not drop out right away, but I don't see him being able to do much from here. I certainly hope that Thompson does not endorse McCain. I'm ok with either Romney or Giuliani...
Actually, Ron Paul voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, but opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Bruce, for God's sake, will you ever be able to get past that moron?
He's REALLY nailing it with 4% in SC and 14% in Nevada. This clown is going no where, and he's already arrived at his destination.
You muttered: "He voted NO on the Defense of Marriage Act because regulating marriage is not authorized in the federal Constitution."
Neither is the mothership. Neither is electricity. Neither is geometry. There are tens of thousands of things "not authorized in the federal Constitution."
In fact, where was it authorized for Jefferson to send the Marines after the Barbary pirates? Paul is a political waste of skin, and you people need to be thinking about who you're going to support in the election. Paul, when he runs as an independent, or some other moonbat that has absolutely no chance?
7. Careful, Michelle. Clearly, the Ronulans aren't all that concerned with details.
8. Wishing the worst candidate on you (nothing personal I'm a Democrat, and you are Republicans), I had big hopes for Huck-A-Bee. Sadly, I'm afraid John McCain is someone many of my liberal friends could live with. We'll redouble our prayers for Mitt Romney, if Giuliani's out of the picture.
Bruce Guthrie: please, please use your considerable influence with the Libertarians to talk Ron Paul into a 3rd party run. He'll be too old next time...it's his historical moment.
And you work on your liberal friend, Michael Bloomberg, OKay?
These are the Democratics who say they feel the little guys pain!
From Norm! Vegas configential
"CLINTON, OBAMA KEEP N9NE STEAKHOUSE BUSY
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama takes a photo with Barry Dakake, the head chef for N9NE steakhouse at the Palms, on Friday after delivering his food to the Illinois senator in Las Vegas. (Courtesy photo)
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her camp ate a little higher off the hog than her rival Barack Obama during their week of campaigning in Las Vegas.
Both campaign camps called N9NE Steakhouse at the Palms minutes apart Friday for a food delivery.
Chef Barry Dakake and Jenna Morton, wife of N9NE co-owner Michael Morton, delivered around $200 worth of food, including two Kobe burgers, two organic chicken sandwiches and one order of Dover sole, to Obama in a conference room at the Las Vegas Signature Terminal.
The Clintons' tab came to $1,530 and included entrees of nine steaks, three chicken, three salmon and three Maine scallops, two lobster pappardelle, salads, sashimi, rock shrimp, and various side dishes.
The Clintons, who spent the week in a Bellagio villa, also had a big order delivered from N9NE on Monday."
I do give credit to Obama for holding the line,
but Hillary and her gang really know how to rack up and rip off the taxpayer $$$$$$$$$
I believe that the Republican nominee would rather oppose Hillary than Obama. Although, it would be a moral victory to witness Obama with or without the assist of John Edwards - put a stake in the Clinton's heart, although Obama would do better in the general than Hillary - in spite of all of the smoke and mirrors campaigning that the Clinton machine is doing. The telling tale as to how dumbed-down the electorate is will play itself out. The Clinton machine is betting on the electorate being dumbed down enough so they can sucker enough of them into supporting what will be the most corrupt presidential candidate in history (even worse than Bill and also the current incumbent).
McCain would have the best chance to beat Hillary -if she ends up getting the nod, followed by Rudy G. Romney would lose to either one of them and Huckabee is even money on being the Vice Presidential nominee - he has proven sharp even though I don't agree with a number of his positions. Obama is more of a uniter, who would pose the toughest challenge to the Republicans - Kerry, Lahey and other big name Dems are coming over to support Barack Hussein Obama.
Oh and by the way, the Villa at Bellagio where the Clinton's stayed is really worth a look.
I wonder how many Carbon credits they had to buy to stay here!
If this is where all you democrats stay when in Las Vegas please raise your hand!
If this is where you think you will find someone who shares your current financial concerns, please raise your hand!
Here is where they stayed!
A few thoughts about the results as Eric/Mitt tries to fillet McCain and Huckabee:
Once again Romney does remarkably horrible in the category of saying what he believes. Once again the exit polling shows that single issue anti-immigration folks are in the minority and that again the Republicans are split down the middle (like the rest of the country) on whether a form of 'amnesty' or complete deportation is in order.
And, sorry Mr. Bailo, while we agree that Rudy would be the better President, I must disagree with you on labeling someone who supports farm subsidies as a liberal. That position is historically a conservative position and has only become 'liberal' more recently. Farm subsidies, immigration, and some other issues are not a conservative/liberal type issue, they are more of an urban/rural issue and urban republicans are acting like liberals on these issues.
Huckabee, surprisingly, is in a much better position than Romney - mainly because he is more apt to become VP than Mitt. Florida will be very interesting, if Rudy can nearly but not quite pull off the win, then you will actually see Huckabee win the state! That's right, if Rudy can pull a few percentage points from McCain, that would push Huckabee into the lead, with Romney a close fourth.
Additionally, how many South Carolina 'conservatives' are kicking themselves. If only they would have went with Huckabee, they could have finished off McCain - instead McCain is the front runner, and judging from Fredheads and Mitt's supporters, McCain is the last one they want to see as the nominee.
Romney: His strategy of winning the early states is killing him. He has shown that he can only win in states that nobody else competes in, or states that he has close ties to. That pretty much leaves Idaho, Utah, Colorado and Massachusetts as the only states where he can expect to win.
Thompson: He likely does not expect to win anymore. He's probably considering who he wants to win. If he thinks he would be McCain's choice for VP, look for Thompson to continue campaigning to draw support from Romney. If Thompson gets out, then you can expect a 5 to 7 point jump for Romney.
14. Michelle, my darling, Mike Bloomberg's a Republican, isn't he? Actually, we don't need another billionaire in the race. Romney's enough.
Doug @ 13 -
I'm always amused when commenters ascribe motives to me that are incorrect. I'm either trying to "fillet" other candidates (as if posts at this blog have some sort of impact on the race) or I'm simply revisiting important questions about the GOP race, which in this case cover topics that have also been increasingly discussed by other national analysts in the last couple weeks.
The MSM and Eric's bludgeoning of Huckabee saying he doesn't have support of non-evangelicals might be working or it might not. Assume if you will that 30% of the nationwide Republican primary electorate will be evangelicals. If Huckabee gets 43%, then that is 13 points right there. If he gets 16% of the non-evangelicals - nothing to laugh at - then that is an additional 11 points, so he's sitting pretty with 24%. That number of votes in most states with 3 or 4 other competitive candidates is going to do him wonders. He just needs money to get his voice heard to more people - because in reality he is by far the most personable Reagan like candidate - as far as communications - on the Republican side. If he had an average amount of money he could earn the nomination - as it is don't be surprised if he's the king maker this year.
As for Rudy, he has to win Florida. If he doesn't the press will be hounding him the next few days about how his strategy failed and he would surely lose California and PA to McCain as well. But if Rudy wins in Florida, he'll have a few days of valuable free positive publicity and that could just be enough.
Either we're "saying" it, or the entrance/exit polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina keep proving it. I'll go with the latter.
It's not like Huckabee hasn't had the media attention necessary to get his message out. He had his chance, it's not selling.
Now, he's still an important factor in the race because a substantial core of his support will stick with him until he bows out, thus as you allude to, giving him a chance to chalk up delegates that could be rather important in forming an alliance later. But to say he could sell himself if he just had more money ignores the copious favorable press he rode from December through the middle of this month.
He had his chance. It didn't work.
I don't see Huckabee having either the support or the money to go much further in this campaign. His best bet would be to offer himself to Giuliani as VP to try to pull together the social conservatives that Giuliani has a problem with. If Giuliani announced Huckabee as his VP, that could push Giuliani over the top. Otherwise, it is as Doug said, Giuliani either has to win Florida, or be very close to the top all on his own, to propel him into super Tuesday.
As I said before, right now it is a three way race for the top of the ticket--McCain, Romney and Giuliani.
Looks like I may need to go down to Florida on 1/29, so it could be interesting to be in the state during their primary vote.
Michelle @ 5, thanks for setting me straight. I make a mistake every now and then. I think I was right about Ron Paul's basic position, even if I got the votes wrong.
Pudge @ 3, ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers. Neither abortion, nor marriage are delegated to the federal government. The states get to decide whom their citizens are, not the feds. If a state decides you are a citizen at three or five months after conception, then the feds have to honor that. Look, this whole Roe vs. Wade thing is a major mistake. It polarizes everything. We need compromise on this issue so that partial birth abortion can be outlawed, yet early-term abortion can be legal. (I want to see the incidence of early-term abortion reduced, but making it illegal doesn't help in attaining that goal.) Ron Paul would prefer that early-term abortion be illegal, but his solution of leaving it to the states would leave us with my desired outcome. Some states would outlaw abortion entirely, while others would have it be legal through the end of the second trimester. Let's fight this one out at the state and local level, and we will have less divisiveness in America on this issue. Pro-lifers can win at the local level in many areas. Pro-choicers will get most of what they want in other regions.
As for marriage, the 14th amendment requires equal protection of law by the states. Leaving marriage to the states will result in a similar diversity of solutions as we will have with abortion. This is just fine. But if a state considers a gay guy a citizen, then it can't deny him the right to marry whomever he chooses, as long as it grants the right to straight people. Equal protection under the law. Our rights are equal. Again, this is a states' rights issue, and some states will fight it, (probably UT, SC, ND, SD, etc.) while others (like CA, HI, MA and WA) will grant marriage licenses to gays and lesbians. The states who fight it will find themselves in court and have to deal with the 14th amendment. The federal courts may get involved at this point, but Congress still has no authority to regulate marriage. It should be taken care of by the courts instead.
A better solution would be to have states grant civil unions to all, and leave the term "marriage" to the churches, where it had been for hundreds of years. Private churches have the right to discriminate, where governments can not. Baptists would never marry gays and lesbians, but Unitarians would do it every day. I think discriminating against gays in marriage is disgusting, and would never join a church that discriminates in this way, but I have to defend their right to discriminate, as long as they accept no government funding.
Republicans would do much better if they defended the principles of liberty, limited government, and the Constitution that they used to defend.
Bruce, here is how this Republican reads the constitution as far as citizenship is concerned:
No state can make a citizen out of the unborn or out of an illegal immigrant or any other means for that matter, unlike what you think.
The 14th amendment is pretty clear in stating that only those born or naturalized in the U.S. are considered citizens. Also, your enumerated powers is quite clear in Article I Section 8 - Congress is given the power to create laws on naturalization. If the state of New York wanted to declare illegal immigrants as citizens or if they wanted to declare the unborn as citizens, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in front of the Supreme Court and constitution.
Conservative Phillip Gold wrote in his great 2004 book, "Take Back the Right:"
"If a conservative is someone who, when told about something going on in the world answers, Yes but how did it work in the past? a libertarian is someone who asks, Yes, but how would it work in theory?"
Doug @ 20: Article IV, Section 2: "The citizens of each state shall be..."
Citizens are citizens of STATES, not of the federal government. There is no federal citizenship defined or allowed within the Constitution. Imagine if someone said they were a citizen of The United States, but when asked, which State (or DC) do you live in, or which state do you consider your state, they answered, None? This is impossible. We are citizens of individual states or DC, not of all the states collectively, or of the federal government.
If you disagree, please find the part in the Constitution that says we are citizens of the federal government, or of the United States as a whole, apart from any one, individual state. Congress is authorized to set uniform naturalization rules for the states, but we are still citizens of the state, not the fed.
But the main thing is that naturalization is a process that takes place for immigrants who are already born in another country. It does not apply to unborn humans, who will, presumably, have no need for the naturalization process as long as they are born in one of the 50 states. Your naturalization argument therefore does not apply to the abortion issue. It is left to the states.
Blathering Michael @ 21: that's right, liberty is just a theory. It doesn't work in practice. Same with free markets. The fall of the Soviet Union and the fact that in less free-market countries the poor are all poorer than in more free market economies is just a fluke.
Oh, and that Constitution thing? Just a lot of libertarian theory. It could never help produce the most powerful nation on earth.
And the Declaration of Independence... just a lot of theory. How can anyone believe that we are really endowed by our creator with certain individual rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Just Jeffersonian and Lockean theories, right?
(End of sarcasm.)
There are some really useful theories out there. Like Newton's laws, and the improved versions given to us by Einstein. Newton's laws were good enough to get us to the moon. We need Einstein to make GPS work, etc. But these are all just theories, right? Quantum mechanics and evolution are just theories, as well.
See, the interesting thing about theories is that some of them WORK, and some of them may even be right. As long as that is true, your argument that all things theoretical must be wrong is invalid.
I think that liberty works. It is practical. I think that the US until about 1930 is the shining example of the proof of that theory. There are others as well, today: Ireland, Hong Kong, Botswana, Estonia...
I agree that a conservative tends to value the past, and fears change, and a progressive tends to value change, and dislikes the past. A libertarian loves liberty, and will embrace change to get more of it, and will seek to conserve those liberties that we do enjoy.
We happen to enjoy a largeley libertarian Constitution, and until about 1930, had a largely libertarian government (with the notable and massive exceptions of slavery and lack of women's sufferage and stealing, instad of buying Indian lands, etc.) I guess until about 1930 we had relatively free markets and only about 5% of GDP were taken up with state, federal and local taxes. Now that number is about 35%.
Is libertarianism a theory? well, I guess it is. One that seems to work.
Bruce Guthrie: There is no federal citizenship defined or allowed within the Constitution. ... If you disagree, please find the part in the Constitution that says we are citizens of the federal government, or of the United States as a whole, apart from any one, individual state.
No, the 14th Amendment is pretty clear on this, Bruce: 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.
That portion of the Constitution directly contradicts your previous claim, that: "[t]he states get to decide whom their citizens are, not the feds."
Perhaps the states could define ADDITIONAL citizens, but they MUST recognize the categories of people listed in the 14th Amendment as citizens, both of the state and fedeal governments.
Further, this is not just about citizens. It seems clear that an unborn "person" is not a citizen, since it explicitly mentions born or naturalized, and it is, by definition, neither.
The 14th says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." But it goes further: "... 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."
So this is not just about rights of "citizens," but rights of "persons." And "persons" is left undefined.
Therefore we are left in a situation where the federal government has a Constitutional obligation to protect the rights of the unborn IF they are persons, but with no guidance on whether they are.
In order to uphold the 14th Amendment, the federal government must define whether the "thing" in the womb is a "person," and if so, whether abortion deprives that person of their right to life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; or whether it represents a violation of that person's right to equal protection of the laws.
I was out of TV range from Friday mid-afternoon to Sunday at mid-afternoon. I didn't know who won what. I channel surfed to find the results and it took about two hours to figure out (I was also watching football and running errands) that McCain won SC and Clinton won Nevada.
There was absolutely no mention of Romney winning Nevada. Slight on Nevada? Nope, since they had all the particulars on Clinton.
I pointed this out to the wife- the MSM dislike of Romney's candidacy and attempt to disrail the campaign. It was like a light bulb going on.
Other than Romney hater above, Doug, who is very articulate in his comments and whose comments I respect, the MSM has been very unfair.
The MSM is up to something. They are holding Huckabee and Thompson on life support for who knows what reason (they don't have the cash to keep going) rather than getting the field winnowed down. When can the big two or three start going at it, anyway?
swatter: The MSM is up to something. They are holding Huckabee and Thompson on life support for who knows what reason (they don't have the cash to keep going) rather than getting the field winnowed down. When can the big two or three start going at it, anyway?
Wow. The MSM has the power to shut down a Presidential candidacy? I must've missed that part of civics class.
And not for nothing, but if there is a "top three," then by delegates it has to include Huckabee, and by chance of winning the nomination it has to include Thompson.
pudge, you got yourself some pretty bad info in that "civics" class of yours. You need to start seeing the forest from the trees, if you will.
For a long time now, the MSM is composed of roughly 80-90% of liberals. Why shouldn't they promote their own Republican, after all?
And for your comment, "The MSM has the power to shut down a Presidential candidacy?", you have done what you usually do- you misread fellow posters comments and start a fight. Well, this guy ain't biting. Catch me on another topic.
Romney is a blatant liar. That exchange with the reporter about his not having a lobbyist puts a spotlight on his lack of integrity. Hell even Bill Clinton wasn't that bald faced blatant! And Romney isn't even good at it! Eric - will you please tell Mitt to stop his lying, he isn't good at it??
Pudge, thanks for the education @ 24.
I agree with your interpretation of the Constitution.
But I still think it would be better to let the 50 states sort out the abortion issue. I think it would actually be less divisive that way, since pro-lifers and pro-choicers tend to aggregate in different states. We would also see 50 different experiments, and could find out which sets of laws gave rise to lower rates of abortion.
Perhaps the only Constitutional way for me to get the outcome I desire would be an amendment specifically delegating abortion law to the states. Perhaps both pro-lifers and pro-choicers could get behind this since they could see the potential for local voctories, and campaigns that would bring lots of money in to their organizations, with 50-state battles to fight.
30. Swatter @ 25: now you know what it feels like to be a Ron Paul supporter. Fox news has had an anti-Ron Paul campaign going for months, now.
Pudge at #24,
I don't see states being able to grant additional citizenship, as you mention that it could be possible. It is absolutely clear in Article I that only Congress has the power to make laws in relation to naturalization (which by definition then and now is the process to becoming citizens). Those powers as such are not granted to the states. Additionally, there is a section, I think later in Article I, that was wiggled into the constitution when it was written to allow the states to continue immigrating people, in essence a check on Congress' power until a certain year - kind of a compromise.
Anyhow, no state can confer official citizenship on an individual - that power is granted to Congress. If a state were to confer citizenship, then a couple other clauses kick in - the full faith and credit, and the one saying a citizen of one state is a citizen of the several states - thus it can't kick in because the power is only granted to Congress and is therefore (like the power to engage in war in most cases) prohibited to the states.
swatter: If you want to cede the authority to the media to decide when a candidacy is over, that's your problem, I suppose. It's a terrible thing to wish for, in my opinion. Just because you don't like candidates in the race is, to me, no reason to ask for the media to take on the responsibility of choosing when a candidate is "finished." Even though they do it often, it's terrible each time it happens.
Bruce Guthrie: But I still think it would be better to let the 50 states sort out the abortion issue.
I understand that, I just don't agree. Well, I can see that as a short-term strategy. I like to reference Lincoln on this topic, and will do so again: he wanted it be worked out in the states, but his ultimate goal was to abolish it federally.
Perhaps the only Constitutional way for me to get the outcome I desire would be an amendment specifically delegating abortion law to the states.
Well, not necessarily, if the court continues to punt on the issue of what a "person" is, which I suspect will continue for some time.
Doug: I don't see states being able to grant additional citizenship, as you mention that it could be possible. It is absolutely clear in Article I that only Congress has the power to make laws in relation to naturalization (which by definition then and now is the process to becoming citizens). Those powers as such are not granted to the states.
Good point, but it depends on whether that refers to naturalization as a U.S. citizen, or as a state citizen. I don't know the answer. If at the time there WAS no U.S. citizenship, as Bruce says, then yes, I think you'd be correct, because it would obviously have referred to the only kind of naturalization: state citizenship. I don't know.
However, this all assumes that naturalization is the only method of becoming a citizen other than being born into it, and I am not sure whether that is the case, either.
Pudge, it really doesn't matter if the original article referred to state citizenship or federal, the power to make laws on naturalization was Congresses alone and not the states. We don't have to read their minds because even if they meant state citizenship, the power was still Congress'.
I think the way this all played out is that as the states ratified the constitution, their citizens would then become protected by it among the several states. Then it became the Feds responsibility to make laws granting citizenship after that. I believe Congress did act in the early 1790s and created a framework for naturalization - becoming a citizen. Those laws were Congress' to create, the state's couldn't make their own.
I think that was one of the problems with the Articles of Confederation that our founders intentionally tried to fix in the constitution - each state granting citizenships was not working so they changed it in our Constitution.
Doug: We don't have to read their minds because even if they meant state citizenship, the power was still Congress'.
But if they meant federal citizenship, then it wasn't.
Pudge is DEBATING. Inconcievable and mind-boggling.
Keep it up for a change.
Pudge is DEBATING. Inconcievable and mind-boggling.
Keep it up for a change.
Courteous cogitation and discourse?
Does Pudge have manners... perhaps only when he knows he is being observed.