![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John C. Eastman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.stthomasmore.net/harrelldesigns/board-of-directorsWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The section on board affiliations was removed by user:Drmies on the basis that it was 'just resume padding' and required secondary sourcing. I disagree.
First, board affiliations have broader political significance; the Federalist Society has been highly influential in judicial selection during the Trump administration, and Prof. Eastman's chairship of a practice group therein is not merely a status marker or honorary title but suggests influence on policy direction for that society's membership. Readers can make significant inferences about Prof Eastman's political affiliations and activity from this and other board memberships; I did so when I consulted his bio the other day, and I was startled to discover the information had been removed when I returned to check this morning.
Second, board memberships are binary matters of fact rather than assertions or opinions, and fall within the guidelines for Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources. The institutional and diverse nature of the source data (as opposed to, say, a single resume page on a personal website) strengthen the case for its inclusion.
Because many readers will be reviewing Prof Eastman's biography pursuant to his controversial article about the citizenship of Kamala Harris, and because Prof Eastman's extracurricular activity involves participation in multiple political advocacy organizations of national scope and notability, the deleted information provides important context and these edits should be reverted.
-- Anigbrowl ( talk) 15:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
So, I suggest you search around for reliable, secondary sources that not only verify the information, but also prove it noteworthy--lest we write suggestive innuendo in BLP territory. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 16:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand your worries about the inclusion of badminton scores and swimming diplomas and think the omission of his affiliation with a local school and a county legal society to be no great loss. Still, current board memberships are categorically different from scholastic sporting endeavors, and I am surprised you would conflate them. The institutional examples cited above each have a direct and substantive connection to the subject's professional field, are each well established and notable in their own right for political influence or advocacy at a national level, and exhibit robust and consistent ideological positions. Three bases of relevance should be sufficient grounds for inclusion of a fact. As noted, Wikipedia entries for 3 of the 4 institutions refer back to Prof. Eastman's entry, and it seems reasonable to think that readers interested enough to visit his article from one of those entries would prefer not find themselves at a dead end with no signpost to his other affiliations. It is of course up to the reader to weigh the significance of such factual details. Thanks for taking time to consider my admittedly wordy arguments. -- Anigbrowl ( talk) 20:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Eastman is 'a top officer of the Federalist Society' and chairman of the National Organization for Marriage [2] [3]; a director of the Public Interest Legal Foundation [4] and member of its Voting By Mail Task Force [5], and a director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence [6].
Arguably, the original primary sources were sufficient and in some respects better for verification purposes. Since an argument of sufficiency for inclusion has already been made on three bases I look forward to reviewing objections thereto. You will recall that your original concern over 'suggestive innuendo in BLP territory' was shown to be moot since chair/directorships are offices with delineated powers and responsibilities, rather than mere honoraria or ordinary membership. It seems strange to exclude the bare facts official roles in national organizations that easily meet the threshold of notability in their own right.-- Anigbrowl ( talk) 22:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The board memberships should be included in the article. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Of its current two sentences, one says he's a law professor, and the other says he's a professor of law. This is redundant information. The lede should very briefly summarize article. Further down in the article, you flesh out (with citations) whatever is relevant.
This should be in some form, fixed by active editors. It's really weak.
One suggestion:
Better than:
Also, I do think his affiliations may be relevant (but NOT in lede).
2600:1702:39A0:3720:E0BA:3366:CDC0:E188 ( talk) 21:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The reference to petitions to the Supreme Court is vague. I would need to know more about what is being referred to to evaluate it. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Presently the "new" Wikipedia lede:
It's an error/typo to say "THE U.S. congressional seat representing California." Also, presently, the lede says he "ran for office AND" did X, And Y. The first "and" denotes something additional to the preceding claus, which is unintended. ..... Perhaps slight improvement:
Further, in my view, his precise and lengthy title (PLUS his former dean gig) as a law professor at Chapman University doesn't belong in lede: It's enough in this regard to say he's a LAW PROFESSOR at C. Uni. It also frees up a bit of room to BRIEFLY mention other stuff. Currently, the words of the title constitute about 40% of the material in the lede. This isn't necessary.
Redundancy is replicated in new version. He's identified as an "academic" and "lawyer" in first sentence. In second sentence he's identified as a law professor. It's a reasonable assumption (though not absolute) that a law professor is a lawyer and an academic -- thus redundancy.
The lede should make a brief reference to his role as a right-wing commentator. It's likely that this is a key claim to his "NOTABILITY" -- and therefore should be established in the lede.
Regarding US Supreme Crt: On second thought, maybe it's not lede material. Note however, that my initial proposal included only two petitions that were turned away; whereas body of article mentions (suggests?) four (I think).
Getting "turned away," having your petition refused: no feather. At least, as a "constitutional lawyer," Eastman does produce consistent results!!!
Separately, "I'm very gratified" that the relevant board affiliations are now included in the text.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:8CB4:E4F2:EF83:67F1 ( talk) 15:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Where, in this article, is the link to the Newsweek op-ed? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 15:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Redundant complaint regarding lede: He's identified as an "academic" and "lawyer" in first sentence. In second sentence, he's identified as a law professor. It's a reasonable assumption (though not absolute) that a law professor is both a lawyer and an academic -- thus redundancy exists in lede.
Beyond identification as a "law professor at Chaplain University," his current, formal title and whatever various other present (and former) titles and affiliations belong in the body of the article -- rather than lede. They're not at all irrelevant but a lede should succinctly summarize entire content of article using as few words as possible. It's a courtesy to reader, rather than a service to the subject.
Separate issue: his role as a right-wing commentator is a key claim to his "NOTABILITY" -- and therefore should be briefly established in the lede.
(Note: Fox News called his recent essay an "unfounded and widely refuted claim." His crackpot nature ought to be made clear in the lede -- but THAT's a matter of opinion. The other stuff is purely a question of writing and form.) 2600:1702:39A0:3720:D018:20B8:F909:37C7 ( talk) 23:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, "Republican" is perfectly descriptive. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:500A:C41F:E2F2:3EF6 ( talk) 03:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Please remove this peacock word describing Laurence Tribe. 216.8.162.124 ( talk) 17:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
One possible answer is in the Wikipedia guideline on ledes:
The WP:LEDE type-lede is, in effect a table of contents, such that it "stands on its own." If a reader sees nothing but the lede he or she can nonetheless know what is in the article.
The Wikipedia lead concept is similar to the often overlooked "nut graf" concept of journalism 101: So that the reader can quickly grasp entirely what the article will be about, the "nut graf" ideally offers a succinct and complete summary "near the top" of a story. (A newswriting "lede" contains the news, generally followed by the nut.)
The idea is to serve and respect the reader -- there's no other reason behind the concept.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:B892:FC1E:D420:FFD6 (
talk)
03:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Facts about Eastman’s two attempts at elective office should be grouped together and presented as an element of his notability. Currently they are split and listed under separate headings.
It should be made clear that in each case his candidacy failed in California Republican primary.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:F154:B8E0:DB4F:9577 ( talk) 17:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
2600:1702:39A0:3720:6CA7:8A30:F18B:39AA ( talk) 19:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I haven't actually read the article with any care -- not least because I don't find it very readable. So, whatever.
One must decide what's notable about the guy. Then, group these things into several categories in order to give some structure to the piece. A chronology of his life, in itself, is unlikely to be notable.
Generally what's not notable ought not be in the article.
Treatment of each of these categories would be relatively brief and thus easier to read and to keep organized for the writer(s).
For example, one could create a subhed "Legal Scholarship" and list his theories and publications there, along with evidence of the impact they've had -- or whatever is strictly pertinent. Once the reader reads that section, they've gained some idea about that single category of notable relevant material. TO the extent his theories are complex or wide-ranging, "sub" subheads can be added.
Then, they can go on to the next category of information -- or stop reading. Not everything about a subject is notable, and obviously, not all details belong.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:5099:625A:9510:2B5E ( talk) 21:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Lede again: Having two ands in one sentence is rarely optimal use of language. It should be avoided, if possible, in good-enough writing.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:54CA:4819:90FE:D08F ( talk) 05:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Google results for "Two ands in a sentence" are endless and seem, though not very authoritative, at least in general agreement:
A minimal solution is...hmmmm.... remove one of the "ands???" But which one........?!?!?!
2600:1702:39A0:3720:F039:E0D6:E8FC:C1D7 ( talk) 12:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
that version looks ok. but lede should indicate notability. Note NYT ID
As one would expect, this is what he is "notable" for.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:C8C6:68F0:DAB1:70D ( talk) 17:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, he's "notable" for having "long argued" the point (see NYT) and Eastman said much the same about himself, quite recently and I'd informally paraphrase his recent quote along the lines of "and I've been saying this for a long time." 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 18:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 76.250.61.86 ( talk) 18:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
1) Eastman participated as a candidate in an election process that Harris won. 2) Then, Eastman attacks Harris' eligibility for elective office. Is there a controversy about whether both facts 1 and 2 are relevant? If nothing else, it's a "notable" coincidence. (It's been so widely noted elsewhere that to ignore this information here (for any reason) is harmful to the article's basic credibility.
2600:1702:39A0:3720:5C43:5AF1:F3F6:2232 ( talk) 20:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Aside from the section title, the only mention of "conspiracy" in the body is the second paragraph's opening sentence:
Being compared to a conspiracy isn't necessarily saying it is one.
Two cited references here use that term:
If indeed the theory of Eastman (that birthright citizenship doesn't extent to children of non-permanent residents) is what the media is referring to, it is valuable to describe the regular description of it as a "conspiracy" in the media without necessarily adopting that term here too.
Something like "false theory" would be more neutral. Even if we agree that Eastman's theory is false, he doesn't appear anywhere in his article to allege there being a "conspiracy" of any sort. Others might do that if they think Eastman is right and others are covering that up, but Eastman has not alleged there is a conspiracy to discredit him AFAIK. WakandaQT ( talk) 03:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There have been repeated attempts to introduce material regarding Ted Cruz to provide a contrast with how Eastman discussed Harris, a different candidate in a different situation. Barring a reliable third party source making statement on this contrast, this is a WP:SYNTHesis constituting original research. I am removing that material again. If statements Eastman made about Cruz got separate coverage, then there may be a place for covering that... separately. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
For the record, Jeastman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked from editing the article. Reading the article and this talk page, it might be a better idea if an editor were to work up a new article from scratch in their sandbox, and then replace the current article with the new one. That way, the COI issues can be dealt with and the templates on the article can be removed. Mjroots ( talk) 08:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The article has two template warnings ("may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" and "major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject"). I agree that earlier versions of this article appeared to have relied on sources close to Eastman (including perhaps Eastman himself). But this article has been extensively revised and expanded in the last six months. I think these templates have outlived their usefulness. -- Weazie ( talk) 19:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This page speaks of a couple of Eastman's legal opinions as being "erroneous" or "incorrect"--one his claim that Kamala Harris was not eligible to the Vice-Presidency, the other, his advice to Vice President Pence that the latter could simply refuse to count certain electoral college votes. As a lawyer, I think that Eastman's advice in each case was gravely mistaken. But in each case, he was offering his legal opinion, and in each case, there has never been a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue in question. I have tried to reflect this by noting that his advice was against the views of the substantial majority of legal scholars, or the views of his own former boss, Judge Luttig. User Soibangla continually reverts to the conclusory use of "erroneous" or "incorrect." This is a small point but detracts from the general accuracy of the article, and makes its less helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:f40:bf00:68ca:8801:26ed:5d3a ( talk) 17:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
In an earlier edit attempt I did note more than that Pence did not adopt Eastman's theory, but this was reverted to simple writing "incorrectly." If we can agree on proper nuance here, I'd be happy to revert to that earlier edit.
Generally, fringe theories apply to facts--Was Obama born in Kenya? Was the moon landing artificially staged? Is there a ring of sex perverts actually running the U.S. government? etc. It does not apply to legal or political theories over which there is substantial disagreement, even if one perspective in widely viewed as correct. For example, we would not write, "X incorrectly argued that monarchy is a better form of government than democracy." That's why my efforts aimed to note that Eastman's theories were a very distinct minority. We need to draw reasonable lines here--for example, if X argued that the Constitution does not provide that a person who receives a majority of Electoral College becomes president, that's not really a theory, it's just an error, discernable by the plain language of the Constitution. And we should note that Eastman, however much you and I disagree with him, does have support among other credible scholars, albeit a distinct minority.
Let's consider another example, along the lines you suggest. "Prof. X testified incorrectly that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms except as part of the militia." Is that a good statement? I think not. The Supreme Court has clearly held the opposite--it does protect the right outside of the militia--but this remains a source of reasonable debate. If someone had written that sentence, I'd delete the word "incorrectly" but note something like, "although the Supreme Court has held otherwise." On the other hand, it would be appropriate to use "incorrectly" as in "Prof X testified, incorrectly, that the Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms outside the context of the militia." Theories of constitutional interpretation are not like theories of physics, that can be proven or disproven. They stand on their own. We can only note where the weight of authority lies.
Several cited WP:RSPs said his theory was incorrect. Did any say it was correct or debatable? Llll5032 ( talk) 03:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Disambiguation page moved to John Eastman (disambiguation) and subsequently deleted per WP:G14. Readily resurrected, should anyone miss it. Hatnote left to the discretion of interested editors. Favonian ( talk) 17:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
John C. Eastman → John Eastman – This is clearly a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "John Eastman". [9] [10] John Eastman (Ohio politician) is a redirect to the 2002 US gubernatorial election page and Lee & John Eastman is a redirect to Lee Eastman. I do not believe that either of those redirects would be missed if they were deleted. A hatnote from this page to Lee Eastman would suffice. Or maybe hatnotes would be excessive in this case. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Neither of the other two John Eastmans seem remotely close to notable. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Neither of the other two John Eastmans seem remotely close to notablesoibangla ( talk) 02:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
What does "six conduits" mean, exactly? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 02:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
This page, of which I am the subject, has quite obviously been largely taken over by political opponents of mine. The bias is clear throughout, particularly in the authorities cited for even basic facts. I propose the following changes (and my apologies for having tried to do this myself--I was not aware of the conflicts policy, as I had been allowed to make changes to my own page previously).
In the opening: Why begin with negatives that hardly define my career. I propose deleting the campaign information and the Newsweek article -- those are better addressed in the specific sections that follow. So delete all beginning with "who twice sought" and replace with: "A former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, he is the founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute."
![]() | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
Jeastman ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Jeastman ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
Jeastman ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
Jeastman ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
Jeastman ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works. |
Jeastman ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. |
“The Constitutional Authority of State Legislatures To Choose Electors,” Testimony before the George Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on State Election Processes, Hearing To Assess Elections Improprieties and to Evaluate the Election Process to Ensure the Integrity of Georgia’s Voting System (Dec. 3, 2020), available at https://livestream.com/accounts/26021522/events/8730585/videos/214364915 (begins at 4:54:00).
“The Only Constitutional Path Is Impeachment, Initiated By Members of Congress Who Are Politically Accountable,” Testimony before U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee, Hearing on “Lessons from the Mueller Report, Part III: ‘Constitutional Processes for Addressing Presidential Misconduct’” (July 12, 2019), at https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/Eastman%20Testimony%20-%20Final%20%28002%29.pdf
Testimony before Colorado Advisory Committee to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Hearing to Examine Backlog in Citizenship and Naturalization Applications (Feb. 22, 2019), available at https://www.colorado.edu/law/2019/02/07/colorado-advisory-committee-us-commission-civil-rights-examine-backlog-citizenship-and
Testimony before U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, hearing on “Bringing Justice Closer to the People: Examining Ideas for Restructuring the 9th Circuit” (March 16, 2017), at https://judiciary.house.gov/hearing/bringing-justice-closer-people-examining-ideas-restructuring-9th-circuit/
Testimony before U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts (“With Prejudice: Supreme Court Activism and Possible Solutions”) (July 22, 2015), at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/with-prejudice-supreme-court-activism-and-possible-solutions.
Testimony before U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security (“Birthright Citizenship: Is it the Right Policy for America?”) (April 29, 2015), available at http://www.judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=E7872029-9B7E-4A62-A9E9-1C035179C7F4.
Testimony before U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary (Executive Order on Immigration) (December 10, 2014), reprinted at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/keeping-families-together-the-presidents-executive-action-on-immigration-and-the-need-to-pass-comprehensive-reform.
Testimony before U.S. House of Representatives, Ways and Means Committee (IRS disclosure of tax returns) (June 4, 2013), reprinted at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Eastman_Testimony6413fc.pdf. AP News coverage at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/04/chairman-anti-gay-marriage-group-says-has-proof-irs-leaked-donor-details/; C-Span video at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/313146-1.
Testimony before California Senate Elections Committee on AB459 (National Popular Vote compact) (June 8, 2011)
Testimony before the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Hearing on Schoolyard Bullying, Washington, D.C. (May 13, 2011)
Testimony before California Senate Judiciary Committee on SB5 (Initiative Proponents authority to defend) (May 3, 2011)
Testimony before Arizona Senate Appropriations Committee, Birthright Citizenship State Compact bill (Feb. 22, 2011)
Testimony before Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee, Birthright Citizenship State Compact bill (Feb. 7, 2011)
Testimony before the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Hearing on Civil Rights Implications of Electronic Surveillance, Washington, D.C. (March 9, 2007)
Testimony before California Assembly Republican Task Force on Illegal Immigration (Oct. 11, 2006)
“How Large is Too Large for the Rule of Law?”, testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing Examining the Proposal to Restructure the Ninth Circuit. Details, include the list of other witnesses, available at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/examining-the-proposal-to-restructure-the-ninth-circuit. (Sept. 20, 2006)
“Does the First Amendment’s Freedom of the Press Clause Place the Institutional Media Above the Law of Classified Secrets?” Testimony before the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Hearing on the Media’s Role and Responsibility Regarding Classified Information (May 26, 2006)
“Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11,” Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, Oversight Hearing on “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty” (Sept. 29, 2005)
Testimony before the California State Senate Judiciary Committee on the federal constitutionality of a proposed state constitutional amendment addressing marriage, Sacramento, CA (May 10, 2005)
Testimony before the California State Assembly Judiciary Committee on the federal constitutionality of a proposed state constitutional amendment addressing marriage, Sacramento, CA (May 10, 2005)
Testimony, Hearing before the Colorado House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, regarding Articles of Impeachment against Judge Coughlin filed by Representative Greg Brophy (April 22, 2004)
“The Filibuster and Majority Rule,” Testimony before the U.S. Senate Rules Committee, Hearing on “Proposals to Amend Senate Rule XXII,” (June 5, 2003)
“Hijacking the Confirmation Process: The Filibuster Returns to its Brigand Roots,” Testimony before the U.S. Senate judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Hearing on “Judicial Nominations, Filibusters, and the Constitution: When a Majority is Denied Its Right to Consent,” (May 6, 2003)
“The Limited Nature of the Senate’s ‘Advice and Consent’ Role,” Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Hearing on “A Judiciary Diminished is Justice Denied: The Constitution, the Senate, and the Vacancy Crisis in the Federal Judiciary.” (October 10, 2002)
Testimony before the Florida legislature’s Select Joint Committee on the Manner of Appointment of Presidential Electors (November 29, 2000), available at https://www.c-span.org/video/?160847-1/manner-appointment-presidential-electors#
Jeastman ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Jeastman ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. [see below] |
However, Axios noted that most constitutional scholars do not accept Eastman's view, labeling it "baseless." Axios also criticized him for brushing off the eligibility concerns of 2016 presidential candidate Ted Cruz, born in Calgary, Canada, in a 2016 National Review op-ed, claiming they were "silly".[32]
Many academics dismissed Eastman’s legal argument. For instance, Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law School, told BBC: "Under section 1 of the 14th Amendment, anyone born in the United States is a United States citizen. The Supreme Court has held this since the 1890s. Kamala Harris was born in the United States."[33] Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe was similarly dismissive, telling The New York Times “I hadn’t wanted to comment on [Eastman’s idea] because it’s such an idiotic theory. There is nothing to it.”[34]
Jeastman ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Please see below. |
Jeastman ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. A secondary source was used to support the requested edit. See WP:SECONDARY. |
Jeastman ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist. |
Jeastman ( talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist. |
Jeastman ( talk) 00:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist. |
Jeastman ( talk) 00:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist. |
Jeastman ( talk) 00:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist. |
Jeastman ( talk) 02:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)