Talk:Jacob M. Howard

Does this make sense?
From the section, "Later interpretation", it says: "In their view, Howard was not describing three classes -- the children born of ambassadors and foreigners and aliens.[11][12]". There is a principle of interpretation of laws (and the Constitution) that laws should not be interpreted so any wording is declared "surplusage": In other words,  give meaning to each word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation  ("9th Circuit Court of Appeals: In the dissent from en banc rehearing of Silveira v. Lockyer 312 F.3rd 1052 (2002), dissent at 328 F.3d 567 (2003) at 575, Judge Kleinfeld stated "it is 'a cardinal principle of statutory construction that we must give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.' Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).").   The source said, " This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States...".   Are they suggesting that there are ambassadors who are NOT foreigners NOR aliens?   Nonsense.  There was no reason to mention "foreigner" if that is implicit in the "ambassadors" category, nor reason to mention "aliens" if that is implicit in the "ambassadors" category. Wikipedia is not obliged to include nonsense in its articles. There is simply no reason to also mention "foreigners" or "aliens" if an "ambassador" is presumably a "foreigner" and/or an "alien". Evidently, Jacob Howard believed that there were "foreigners" and/or "aliens" who were not "ambassadors". So, he was referring to three different categories. Slyfox4908 (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do have any reliable sources for your interpretation? Wikipedia doesn't go by "I think it's true" as a standard of evidence. --Calton &#124; Talk 05:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)