Let's talk about Professor Wurman's thoughtful response to my (and @paulgowder.bsky.social and @anthonymkreis.bsky.social's) critique of his birthright citizenship arguments. It’s a long tweet thread, in which he makes shocking accusations and defends himself. We are unpersuaded that we erred. 1.
Comments
I hope we can all agree that this is language unbecoming a scholar, absent compelling evidence to substantiate it. He does not supply it. 2.
We are perplexed. We explained why we focused on the op-ed, and left no doubt about what we thought about his post-op-ed conduct. 3.
But I'm open to that proposal if Congress wants to pass it via legislation. Ain't got nothing to do with the 14th though.
Here’s what we wrote. We invite readers to compare it to Professor Wurman's description. 6.
Second, perhaps some 100+ years hence another improvement (say, the 19thA, or Korematsu) comes along, and it happens to conflict with an extant 'debt' ostensibly concretized (ossified?) by
Third, did Madison truly mean this debt was infinite?
Fourth, in all events, just because Madison scribed a retort to Jefferson does nothing, ceteris paribas, to establish