Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 February 15

= February 15 =

Citizenship or residence requirements for SCOTUS Judges
Reading Article Three of the United States Constitution, it doesn't seem to put any citizenship or residency requirements for SCOTUS judge eligibility. Can a non-US citizen, or even a non-US resident technically become a Supreme Court judge? (assuming the president nominates them and the senate confirms them)Johnson&#38;Johnson&#38;Son (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Turns out, they by and large can't (barring a few minor exceptions)... because of laws on who the federal government can pay wages to. It's possible for an American Samoan or a Puerto Rican to become a justice, and in theory you could have a situation where you have a US resident who has learned US law and has applied for citizenship as soon as the option was available (i.e. within six months) but whose application has not yet gone through (and has lasted less than two years) was somehow selected, but it's very hard to see this happening, since they would have an absolute maximum of two years experience in the US judiciary. Edit They could actually have had slightly more legal experience, if they submitted an affidavit that they would apply for citizenship when it became available, but the absolute limit would be seven years work experience in the US. Smurrayinchester 08:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Smurrayinchester, that page is for people who want to be employed by the judiciary, not for judges themselves. There is no requirement that a Justice be a citizen or resident, and making compensation conditional would be unconstitutional. There is no similar requirement that a federal judge be granted residency, so I don't see how a nonresident could do the job, but that would be a separate issue. There is also no requirement that a Justice be a lawyer or have any judicial experience, and there have been several Justices with no prior experience as judges, although I believe they were all lawyers. John M Baker (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is also no requirement that a Justice be a lawyer or have any judicial experience, and there have been several Justices with no prior experience as judges, although I believe they were all lawyers. This is true as a technical/semantic/legal matter.  But it is not true as a practical matter.  In modern times, there is no way that a Senate would confirm an individual with no legal training, education, and/or experience.  There is no way that a president would even nominate someone like that.  Again, as a practical matter.  I am quite sure that when the Constitution was written, there were different "routes" to becoming a lawyer and/or a judge.  If I remember correctly, you didn't necessarily go to law school (education back then was far less "rampant" than it is today).  I believe that you would "apprentice" under another lawyer, and get your training/education/experience in that manner.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That was possible up until fairly recently - Robert H. Jackson was the "last Supreme Court justice appointed who did not graduate from any law school". Adam Bishop (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't one of the Bushes nominate a woman who was a personal secretary or something? Although I think she withdrew before it got to the Senate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Harriet Miers. Let's not exaggerate things, though; although there was some disagreement about how well-qualified Ms. Miers was for the Court, she had several decades of legal experience and had been president of the Texas Bar Association. "Secretary to the President" doesn't mean someone who types his letters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to suggest that it is practical for a nonlawyer, or for that matter a noncitizen, to become a Supreme Court Justice. All of the Justices have been lawyers, and I believe all have been U.S. citizens, although some were not natural-born citizens.  (Similarly, any male Roman Catholic can be named Pope, but somehow they always choose someone who is already a priest.)  It would be unlikely today for someone without a law degree to be named to the Supreme Court, although there have been many Justices without one.  Jackson was only technically lacking a law degree; he attended law school but was under 21 when he would have graduated, the school's minimum age to award a law degree.  However, James F. Byrnes not only did not have a law degree, he also did not attend college or even high school.  Stanley Forman Reed, who was appointed earlier than Byrnes or Jackson, was the last sitting Justice without a law degree, although he did attend law school for a while.
 * Although none of the sitting Justices lack judicial experience, it is quite probable that there will be future Justices who have not previously served as a judge. Some people have suggested that President Obama, for example, might serve on the court in the future; he is a former professor of constitutional law, so his appointment would be quite plausible.  Harriet Miers had no judicial experience, although her role as White House counsel was quite a bit more than personal secretary.  John M Baker (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That all sitting Justices had previous judicial experience on lower courts was true until 2010, but Elena Kagan was never a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This article suggests that Scalia supported her nomination, which might have helped her case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad, you are correct: Kagan is the one Justice who was not previously a judge.  Thank you for the correction.  John M Baker (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no constitutional bar to sitting any Article III judge who is a non-citizen/non-resident (the concept of "non-citizen resident" status isn't even discussed in the constitution). I'm not sure whether there could be a statutory requirement, though there are statutory controls over the courts in a lot of other ways: Number of justices, and just about everything you can imagine about the nature and organization of the lower courts, are determined by statute. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Although there is no express constitutional requirement of citizenship, note that an incoming Justice would have to take the constitutional oath of office. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Untied States' "nation building" efforts in Mexico
From what I understand, Mexico is, in some ways, in horrible shape. Cartel violence is prolific, and thousands die every year at their hands. Law enforcement corruption in endemic, and the rule of law is, shall we say, somewhat weak. And the economy suffers from "cliff inequality", whereby the poor are VERY poor.

The upshot is that thousands to millions of Mexicans clamour to be allowed into the United States (or sneak in), whilst the general population suffers. It strikes me that if Mexico could be helped to "Americanize" (its' economy, rule of law and living standards etc), the flow might significantly slow. Personally, I think so many Mexicans want to become Americans that the Mexican Parliament should simply apply to be admitted as the 51st state of the Union.

Some American conservatives seem to have this view that America can simply build a high fence and employ elite border control units, and wash its' hands of what goes on on the other side of the fence. Moral issues aside, history has shown that this simply doesn't work. What goes on in Mexico will always have a major and serious effect on the United States, regardless of the height of border walls, or the size, training and resources of the border patrol units. Border control measures can, at best, be only part of the solution.

Enough of my rambling, here's the actual question: Have there been any serious attempts on the part of the United States to engage in "nation building" in Mexico? (After all, Mexico's governance matters far more to US security than that of Iraq or Afghanistan). I'm not talking about simple joint law-enforcement training exercises. I mean tackling the really tough stuff about good governance, systemic steps to minimise corruption at all levels (both at the top and at the grassroots), the rule of law throughout the country, and addressing the economic plight of the Mexican poor by developing the necessary areas of the economy to get them proper, decent-paying jobs. Has this ever been tried? Or at least, has any US federal politician tried to seriously push the idea? And if not, why not? (Is it simply hopeless?) Eliyohub (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * According to nation-building, it's done through the power of the state. America would need to conquer Mexico first. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, there have been efforts from the U.S. to assist in capacity-building, etc., in Mexico. The most well-known is the Mérida Initiative to fight organized crime (cartels) and violence. The idea is partly Drug War-inspired, but surely another aim is to make the situation in some areas of Mexico less desperate and more stable (hence decreasing illicit immigration). The results are, as you might expect, mixed.  For background, see this January 2016 Congressional Research Service report, U.S.-Mexican Security Cooperation: The Mérida Initiative and Beyond and this New York Times article, U.S. Widens Role in Battle Against Mexican Drug Cartels. For a critical view, see Why Is the US Still Spending Billions to Fund Mexico’s Corrupt Drug War? by Jesse Franzblau of The Nation.
 * Notably, in 2012, Mexico enacted a federal Anti-Corruption Law, similar in many respects to the U.S.'s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Neutralitytalk 16:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, no need to run the country to influence and assist. I was maybe taking "engage in" and "serious attempt" too literally, in a "south of Mexico" way. Less planning, more marching. That sort of push hasn't happened recently, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There was Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti in 1994 to 1995. Neutralitytalk 22:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Had a convoluted 2004 sequel, too. I just meant in Mexico. Since 1994, they've been part of the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement, but still not quite invited to the First World. Bit of a geopolitical oddball. Where else could you hold a North–South Summit? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that capacity building is its own thing. Thanks, Neutrality and EMPRETEC! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea of a US-Mexico merger was discussed in a Freakonomics podcast. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)