Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Succumbing to the twitter virus

I'm sure it has become apparent to the hundreds of you who receive this blog that lately I've been writing less than in the past. A principal reason is that we've moved back to California (Los Angeles), and have been absorbed in the many details, large and small, attendant upon that process. Then there was the recent First Amendment amicus curiae brief I wrote in the Supreme Court of the United States, and other interesting activities.

The other day my nephew remarked that my knack for making pithy statements wasn't limited to blogs, and reminded me that often I said something worth saying in 140 characters or less. He encouraged me to use Twitter to make political and legal comments from time to time.

Although when it comes to iPads, Smart Phones, WiFi, Face Book, YouTube, and the like, I have pronounced Luddite tendencies, still, I've come to realize that my nephew made sense. Often I have something to say that's too short for a blog, so I just say it and forget it.

Thus, I now have a Twitter account. I can't promise earth-shaking comments, but there may be some clever observations from time to time. (There will be no revelations about what I had for lunch.)

Those who have infected me with the Twitter virus say I should make the following statement: "Please follow me on Twitter @HenryMarkHolzer."


Monday, August 24, 2015


Lately, I've been asked about the meaning of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the final analysis there are fundamentally two very different aspects to the so-called anchor-baby issue. One is the political, which is a waste of time to discuss because it is driven by stupid voters, avaricious businesses, bleeding hearts, powerful lobbies, corrupt politicians, activist minorities, patrician elites.

Legally, however, there’s a long, scholarly constitutional answer. It relies on what Section 1 of the 14th Amendment meant to those who drafted, supported, and enacted it. The short answer is no instant citizenship for anchor babies.

Moreover, because all issues arising in constitutional decision-making arise only in one way -- from the facts of each case -- it is crucial to understand that no case has ever been brought to, let alone decided by, the Supreme Court of the United States raising the citizen status of a child of illegal aliens. The question is wide open, and if it ever reaches the Court that body will be writing on a clean slate. (So much for the Constitutional-deprived media blowhards who insist, with their ignorance on display, that everyone born in the United States is a citizen no matter the legal status of their parents.)
This lack of constitutional precedent is ground for great fear because to today’s “living constitutionalists,” both on and off the bench, Section 1 means whatever at least five justices say it means.

Yet no Republican presidential candidate has spent time addressing the prospect that the next Chief Executive will probably have the power to reshape the Supreme Court of the United States for decades to come.

What's new?