Tommy Tuberville on Birthright Citizenship

I don’t expect much from Senator Tommy Tuberville. I disagree with his political views, even more his disrespect and language denigrating so many.

So I was surprised when I started reading a 4th of July email from Coach, titled “what does it mean to be an American?” I actually agreed with his answer:

Being American was not about ancestry, appearance, or religion. It meant adherence to a set of principles: the rule of law, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and equality under the Constitution. Those principles did more than define the country—they built it. Assimilation has been a cornerstone of our nation since day one.

Disarmed, I wasn’t prepared for the rest:

The Supreme Court had the opportunity this week to reaffirm the Constitution and align with our 250-year history. Instead, six gutless Justices folded to the woke mob and ruled in favor of birthright citizenship. I wish I could say I was surprised. Ever since the Communist Left’s meltdown over Roe v. Wade, some of our Justices have been scared of their own shadows. Thankfully, we have patriots like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito trying to hold the line, but it’s an uphill battle against the Democrat Communists and the Uniparty.

If the Supreme Court won’t do their job and stand up for Americans, Congress has to. Now’s our chance to pass the SAVE America Act, legislation that will preserve our country for generations to come. If we don’t, our 250th birthday may very well be our last.

Flagrant BS that needed a response, if only to lower my blood pressure.

Senator Tuberville,

Thank you for your email celebrating Independence Day and the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. I resonated with your description of what it means to be an American:

Being American was not about ancestry, appearance, or religion. It meant adherence to a set of principles: the rule of law, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and equality under the Constitution. Those principles did more than define the country—they built it. Assimilation has been a cornerstone of our nation since day one.

Then, you made a contradictory U-turn criticizing the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding birthright citizenship, claiming they didn’t affirm the Constitution. Unless you choose to redefine the meaning of words, five of the Justices did indeed affirm the 14th Amendment:

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 seems quite clear.

Your reference to the ”woke mob” must refer to Congress in 1866, when the 14th Amendment was written. The term “woke” was not a word in 1866, and I doubt that Congress was a mob.

If you wish to repeal birthright citizenship, the process is clear: amend the Constitution. Passing the SAVE America Act will not do so. It will only disenfranchise the legal votes of many American citizens, arguably far more than any illegal votes that may be cast.

I’m relieved Tuberville is not running for reelection to the Senate. Unfortunately, he wants to be Alabama’s governor. That’s another quagmire: whether a person who lives in Florida when not in Washington, yet claims to be a resident of Alabama, is eligible to run.

Time to Eliminate DACA

On Thursday, the Supreme Court stopped President Trump’s move to rescind DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), a policy announced by President Obama on June 15, 2012. Reflecting a 5–4 vote, the Supreme Court ruling only said the Trump administration acted improperly when it terminated the program, by not adhering to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said the court considered “only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action” and concluded it failed to do so. This ruling, while positive, leaves the door open for the Department of Homeland Security to resume its effort by beefing up the argument for rescinding DACA.

A permanent resolution to the DACA limbo lies with Congress passing legislation — assuming the president signs it or Congress overrides a veto — providing permanent legal residence and a path to citizenship for those in the DACA program. As the House passed legislation last June (the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019), the responsibility falls to the Senate.

To encourage Senate action, I sent the following letter to Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, and a slightly modified version to Republican senators Susan Collins (Maine), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Mitt Romney (Utah).

Subject: Legal Status and Path to Citizenship for DACA Participants

While the Supreme Court’s ruling this week provides a reprieve for those who have enrolled in the DACA program, the decision does not provide a permanent solution for the children who were brought to the U.S. by their parents and grew up here —most now strengthening American society.

It’s time for Congress to pass legislation to provide those participating in DACA with legal residency and a path to U.S. citizenship, ending their Kafkaesque limbo.

As you know, the House of Representatives passed the Dream and Promise Act last June, one year ago. The Senate must now act — and do so before President Trump marshals a renewed effort to address the Supreme Court’s concerns and rescind DACA. In your role as Majority Leader, you have the responsibility to put this on the Senate’s agenda.

Words Not Frozen in Time

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that firing someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity is illegal, as is any such discrimination occurring in the workplace. Surprisingly, six of the nine justices supported the ruling — including Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts, whose views are typically conservative — and Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion.

This ruling comes as a positive and much-needed sign amidst a long discouraging political climate, particularly the Trump administration’s pushback against transgender rights. While this case only applies to workplace discrimination, it does affirm LGBTQ rights, advancing them with this as precedent for the next case.

What I find fascinating about this case was how the court assessed the core question. The justices were asked to decide whether the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to gay and transgender people. Title VII of that law prohibits workplace discrimination for race, religion, national origin or sex. The court’s ruling says “sex,” as used in the law, does apply to gay and transgender workers.

Justice Gorsuch’s argument and logic make sense:

An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex… It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.

Writing in dissent, Justice Samuel Alito argued that in 1964, when the law was passed,

Discrimination “because of sex” was not understood as having anything to do with discrimination because of sexual orientation or transgender status… Any such notion would have clashed in spectacular fashion with the societal norms of the day.”

I find this to be true, certainly his statement about the societal norms in 1964. It’s highly unlikely anyone in Congress was thinking of advancing gay or transgender rights when the bill was drafted and passed. If any were, they were prophetic.

What’s amazing is this ruling shows, once again, that language is not frozen in time. While its meaning may not literally change, the meaning adapts to the time. While virtually no one in 1964 thought Title VII encompassed sexual orientation or gender identity, Gorsuch’s logic is convincing: the language does apply.

Just as the words “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence apply to all, even as the nation’s founders excluded slaves when writing those words arguing for independence from Britain.

The brilliance of this irony is that our words often mean more than we realize. With time and grace, we can live into them.

Leaking government secrets: patriotic?

This past week we learned that a 29-year-old systems administrator working for the NSA -- actually working for Booz Allen, under contract with the NSA -- leaked classified information about two government programs to access telephone records and Internet traffic. (More about this story here.) Both are part of the government's efforts to combat terrorism and, arguably, make us all safer.

The counter argument is that the government is accessing massive amounts of personal data that should be private, violating the Constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. From this perspective, the leaker and the two newspapers that published the material (The Guardian and The Washington Post) serve the public interest.

My brother Warren, a journalist, has been "debating" the issue with a few of his colleagues, copying me on the back and forth. The discussion stimulated me sufficiently to chime in. To wit,

I'm old enough to remember Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, yet too young to recall the details to be able to discern the parallels and differences with this incident.

Nonetheless, from my vantage point on the far side of the elephant, I think the disclosure is beneficial for (hopefully) starting a public debate on the rights of the government to sweep our personal data. The Supreme Court borrowed from Donald Rumsfeld when it declared that you can't sue for what you don't know. Now we know what we didn't know, and I see where the ACLU has already filed suit.

Despite the administration's declarations of transparency, one cannot disclose a secret without losing one's security clearance and likely going to jail. So even before Congress, the system requires one to lie, rather than tell the truth. The only way for the truth to out is through leaks. Ironically, while the public and the press benefit under our First Amendment rights, the leaker will likely go to jail.

Last point: I don't agree that this disclosure will compromise national security. I have long assumed that we have the capability, technologically, to read and listen to most any conversation that interests the government. For a terrorist to be surprised by this disclosure suggests a high degree of naivete; just look at the precautions taken by Osama Bin Laden to avoid creating a digital trail.

Sorry, one more last ironic point: while we worry about the Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE providing equipment for our telecommunications networks, the threat is really the "lowly" IT guy.

More on health care

A few more thoughts about the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act:

This gentleman called in to Diane Rehm's Friday News Roundup yesterday to describe the difficulty of obtaining health insurance under the present system and why the Affordable Care Act offers hope. His story is touching and compelling and the core issue our Senators and Representatives should be solving.


This family's story isn't the only example.

A colleague is getting divorced and is concerned that his soon-to-be-former wife won't be able to get health insurance. She doesn't work and likely has what the insurance companies would consider a pre-existing condition.

I recently explored forming my own consulting company and getting health insurance for my family. The state's major insurance company said they would not underwrite my daughter until 10 years past her last surgery.

Those against Obamacare seem largely focused on the supposed government takeover of the health insurance industry — such claims seem hyperbole to me — and what the government can and cannot tell citizens to do. I just wish they would be as passionate about the moral issue of ensuring access to health insurance for all Americans.

Supreme Court upholds the health care law

I was pretty sure the Supreme Court was going to strike down the Affordable Care Act, given the uproar about the provision or mandate requiring people to buy health insurance coverage. That the Court didn't and that Chief Justice John Roberts joined — nay wrote — the majority opinion brought tears to my eyes when I heard the breaking news yesterday morning.

We live in a politically polarized country, so it is not a surprise that those who oppose the health care law — dubbed Obamacare — immediately called for the law's repeal. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor promises a vote on July 11, when the House returns from recess. And House Majority Leader John Boehner is almost apoplectic in arguing that the only reasonable course is for the law to be "ripped out by its roots."



While it's far from perfect — can anything designed by committee be even close to perfect? — the Affordable Care Act is a positive step forward in successfully addressing the major health-care issue this country faces: access to health insurance. And it attempts to limit the rising cost of health care.

I think we need to give it a chance to work and then improve it. And I felt compelled to say so to my Republican Senator and Representative:

Congress passed the law. The President signed it. The Supreme Court upheld it. 

Now let us see how it works and then make improvements based upon experience – not hypothetical concerns or political ideology. 

To state that you want to repeal the law without offering a specific, comprehensive alternative is irresponsible, in my opinion. The Affordable Care Act, despite its shortcomings, provides a means for Americans to have health insurance without denied coverage due to preexisting conditions and the risk of rescission, with serious illness. To help address the increasing cost of medical care, the law contains several provisions, including emphasizing preventative care and limiting the amount insurance companies can spend on administration and marketing. 

Rather than hurting economic growth, I believe ready access to health care that is not tied to employment will actually stimulate entrepreneurial activity, new business creation, and job growth. 

It’s a travesty that America is the only developed nation without universal access to health insurance. I believe we have a moral obligation as a country to solve that problem – which the free market has been unable to do on its own. 

So let’s suspend the rhetoric and give the law a fair chance to work.

Read the Supreme Court's full ruling here.