The Armed Forces Journal features an article written by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling. titled "A Failure in generalship". The author is deputy commander of the 3rd Armor Calvary Regiment and has served two tours in Iraq. The overriding problem he discusses, the competency of our general officer corp, is an institutional issue. While his suggestions for improvements may have some validity, his criticism of the current general officer corp is inconsistent with the arguments contained in his paper. I wanted to comment on a couple of his points.
I agree with the statement that war is a "social activity that involves entire nations" and that "the passion of the people is necessary to endure the sacrifices inherent in war." One of the main problems we have with this war is the lack of passion of the people for the war. The passion for this war was strong when we marched into Baghdad and crushed the armies of Hussien. The passion was so strong that the critics, those who oppose the use of the military at all, were silent. However, as soon as things got tough the administration and the military became targets of the media and have been subject to a relentless attack ever since. The attacks have been attacks of destruction not of answers. This relentless barrage of criticism has taken its toll on the American population and their passion to succeed. This is not a failure of the general officer corp or of the administration, it is a product of a endemic dislike for the use of military force by the media. Since Watergate this so called Fourth Estate has been defined by its opposition to the government in general and the military specifically. The endemic negativism built into the media has taken its toll on the American people and has taken its toll on the passion to succeed.
Yingling also suggest that "The quantity and quality of manpower required may call into question the viability of the all-volunteer military." While there are instances in which the mobilization of the entire nation, through a draft, may be required, it is not remotely called for in this war. A large portion of the population is simply not cut out to be in the military nor should they be forced to be there, except as a last resort. It takes a certain kind of person to be able to use force and violence upon another human being. The competency of any military is a direct result of its esprit de corp and forcing men and women, who have no inclination to fight or even be part of a military institution, to do so has a direct and negative effect upon the morale of the force. This was most recently evidenced by the Vietnam and Post-Vietnam era military or even the Russian Military after Chechnya. The mobilization of the population by a draft is only good for a few years of total war and is ill suited for a long sustained war, such as we find ourselves engaged today. In today's environment support for a draft is a political move which is purposely intended to destroy our population's will to fight this enemy. In essence, support for the draft in the modern military is an effort to destroy the "popular passions necessary for the successful prosecution of the war."
I would suggest that there are plenty of highly motivated and competent Americans who would join the military and join this fight if they felt that they were truly needed. I am unaware of even one instance in which the leaders of this country or our military have made a call to arms of this citizenry. If more soldiers are needed to field the military that we need, then a true attempt to acquire volunteers must be made before a draft should ever be contemplated. A call to arms must be made and the need must be expressed to the population in no uncertain terms. A healthy able bodied man who has an inclination toward the military, but who has personal obligations of family and home, must be able to look at his wife and children and tell them that he has to answer the call and that he would be ashamed not to do so. When he tells this to them they must feel that his absence is necessary and is required for their safety and future. This argument has not been made and if it has it has not been made successfully. The fact that this argument has not been made may be a failure on the part of the general officer corp to describe "the means necessary for successful prosecution of the war." However, it could also be a function of the fact that the general officer corp does not believe that a sledge hammer is needed in this war.
Yingling charges that the general officer corp failed to properly "visualize the conditions of future combat."In General Franks' book he described his desire, while in Germany, to change his artillery units from being stationary and slow moving to being fast and fluid. He described this change as what he felt was necessary to move our military from the mind set of the cold war to fight the wars of the future. If memory serves me correctly, it was this very characteristic that drove Rumsfeld to support Franks to take the lead in the initial stages of the war. Franks' felt that a smaller but fast moving force could produce more damage then a slow moving larger force. I have always visualized his idea as that of a depleted uranium round entering a tank. It is the density and speed that causes damage. This was a new way of thinking in the military. It entailed a lighter, stronger, and more agile force. The battle plan supported by Shinseki was more of the same old same old. The suggestion of the need to fight a counter insurgency with a large cadre of unmotivated and poorly trained troops appears to be more like a battle plan for fighting the last war rather than the next war. The battle plan used by Franks was new and forward looking. It may not have been precisely right, but the new army was not entirely in place. The issue, as Yingling points out, is whether it was "too far wrong."
There have been mistakes made in the present war and some have been due to poor planning. Given the speed with which the troops were expected to move, more thought should have been given to the vulnerability of supply lines, body armor should have been more readily available, and the traditional rear line troops should have been trained to fight. Should the Iraqi Army been disbanded? Should lower level Baath officials have been left out of the government? Should we have more Arabic speaking members of the military? These and many other questions are legitimate and should be answered to help end this war and to help prepare for the next, but the fact remains that despite mistakes we are still in control of a country of 25 million people with a force of somewhere between 150,000 to 200,000 and we cannot be moved by any force other than our own will.
Royal Alexander officially announced his decision to run for Louisiana Attorney General. The News Star reports that Alexander identified many issues that will be addressed in the campaign.
He identified a number of issues as critical for the job and the state's law enforcement community, including Internet predators and financial scams that target the elderly. He said he would be aggressive in the fight against methamphetamines, a drug that particularly has ravaged rural areas...
Alexander said he would guide the attorney general's office away from the "missteps" he said have plagued the position. He pointed to Foti's handling of the prosecution of Dr. Anna Pou and two nurses who were charged with murder for alleging euthanizing patients at a New Orleans hospital in the days following Hurricane Katrina.
"I think Mr. Foti has poor judgment," Alexander said. "... (The prosecution) is an example of someone who doesn't understand what it means to be the attorney general."
He must be a threat to the beleaguered incumbent, Charles Foti, because Sam Hanna, Jr. of The Ouchita Citizen has already jumped on the Democratic attack wagon. Hanna, Jr., who rarely says anything nice about anyone and who has trouble admitting when he mauls the truth, says that the only people who would vote for Alexander are the "Rapture Right". He also jumps into the politics of personal attacks by taking a swing at Alexander for a lawsuit filed against the congressional office of his old boss, Congressman Rodney Alexander, by a disgruntled employee. See more here and here and here and here. The lawsuit was an obvious political hit against Congressman Alexander and was timed to coincide with the November 2006 elections. One Congressional Attorney described the claims by the former staffer " as some of the weakest he has ever seen."
This was, of course, in the middle of the
the woman who would be Queen Nancy Pelosi sponsored ethical investigation into the Mark Foley Page Scandal. Pelosi vowed to get back at Congressman Alexander for switching parties (she sponsored legislation for the investigation into Congressman Alexander's role as the page's sponsor and protector, but not into Mark Foley's behavior or the fact that Democrat operatives had sat on the page story until it was politically beneficial). It was obvious that she did not care about the actions of Mark Foley, but just at getting even with Congressman Alexander and anyone who supported him.
Royal Alexander successfully fended off the Pelosi attack machine and helped his boss get reelected in a landslide victory. He should not have any problem with the few
Citizen Breaux Supporters Louisiana Democrats who will pull their heads out of the sand to take pot shots at any Republican who dares challenge the Good 'Ole Boy stranglehold on Louisiana Politics. With Foti's dismal record they certainly do not want to talk about the issues.
The builders of the House for Heroes have overcome many obstacles in their quest to deliver a new home to an injured Iraq war veteran whose home was destroyed in a hurricane, but the one they’re facing now may be the most difficult and frustrating.
The "builders" are students at the Western Center for Technical Studies in Limerick who began this project last fall to help victims of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. They have planned, fund-raised, and nailed together successfully a modular home for the family of Staff Sgt. James Johnson.
Johnson, a member of the Louisiana National Guard, was injured in Iraq in January 2005 when a roadside bomb destroyed the vehicle in which he was riding. Seven months later, his home was destroyed by Hurricane Rita, all while his 6-year-old daughter Gracie battles leukemia.
The students met Johnson on Veterans Day, when he traveled here to view the
house they were building on his behalf. During the months since starting the
project, the school has raised money for supplies from area businesses and contributors,
and the kids have won the hearts of the community as they followed their
All along, officials with the Western Center have said the Pennsylvania National Guard had agreed to transport the house to Louisiana once it is completed.
Not so, says the National Guard. Kevin Cramsey, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs which has jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania’s National Guard, said Monday his department never made a promise to transport the house. What’s more, he said, even though school officials had never applied to the right department, National Guard officials told the school in January that they did not have the equipment to safely move the house. It’s not a matter of backing out or of not wanting to help, said Cramsey; it’s a matter of not being able to carry out this mission.
"We do not have the equipment or the expertise to safely perform this mission," Cramsey said. "It’s not that we didn’t want to do it, we would love to support this; it’s a great project, but it’s not something we could support."
Whether wishful thinking or miscommunication, school officials seemed certain that the National Guard could complete the task. The revelation last week that no agreement existed has created a new obstacle to be overcome.
Gordon Whitlock, a member of the Pottsgrove School Board and the current head of the joint operating committee that oversees the school, said he spent most of Monday trying to find a company capable of transporting the home.
"I must have called 100 different people and I found one company that can do it, but it looks like it would cost close to $20,000," Whitlock said.
The kids who have worked so hard to build the house see it as one obstacle to be overcome, Whitlock added.
The project needs a company willing and able to transport the house and money to make it happen.
This worthwhile project has involved hours of labor in a heartfelt mission to help a soldier in need. The community can’t let these kids down now.
Contributions are needed to help fund the transfer of the house the students built. They can be sent to The Western Center for Technical Studies, Attn: Mary Polinski, 77 Graterford Road, Limerick, PA 19468 and identified as contributions for "House for Heroes."
Alexander Launches Campaign for Louisiana's Top Law Enforcement Position
SHREVEPORT, LA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- April 19, 2007 -- Shreveport native and attorney Royal Alexander officially announced his candidacy today for the Louisiana Attorney General position currently held by Democrat Charles Foti of New Orleans. Alexander, a forty-year-old Republican, has most recently served as Chief of Staff to United States Congressman Rodney Alexander.
"In this critical time, Louisiana needs an Attorney General who is interested in enforcing the law, not playing politics," said Alexander. "I believe now is the time for Louisiana to chart a new course, a course away from the 'good old boy' politics of the past and toward fresh energetic leadership rooted in sound legal principle," added Alexander.
Alexander will focus his first term on re-inventing the Attorney General's office after years of missteps and mistakes in its efforts.
"Poor planning and poor administration by the Attorney General's office are the hallmarks of the Foti regime, not to mention the politics-based decision-making process that seems to turn up at every corner. We have all seen the numerous blunders that have taken place the last four years, and truthfully, we can't afford another four years of 'Keystone Cops'-style leadership from our top law enforcement official," stated Alexander. "At a time when Louisiana needed him most, this Attorney General has failed us in the worst way," concluded Alexander.
Royal Alexander is a native of Shreveport. Prior to his position as Chief of Staff to Congressman Rodney Alexander, he served as an Administrative Law Judge for the Division of Administrative Law, State of Louisiana. Alexander has also served as attorney, of counsel, with the law firm of Smith and John in Shreveport, Campaign Consultant and Congressional Aide to former Congressman Clyde C. Holloway, as attorney with the law firm of Jeansonne and Remondet with offices in Shreveport, Lafayette, New Orleans, and Houston, and as a law clerk for the Honorable Rebecca F. Doherty, U.S. District Judge, Western District of Louisiana. Alexander received his J.D. from Oklahoma City University School of Law, where he served on Law Review and Moot Court Board and has a B.A. from Louisiana State University-Shreveport.
Pasadena, California -- April 17, 2007 - The students and faculty of
Virginia Tech have experienced an unimaginable horror this week. The
slaying of over 30 students has left the campus in a fog of disbelief
and given rise to a flood of unanswered questions. The sanctity of the
university, an institution of higher learning for our country's young
adults, has been breached by the sights and sounds from the deadliest
shooting rampage in American history . The stories have been splashed
across the televisions and computer screens of America, and Americans
have blanketed the survivors and their family and friends with thoughts
and prayers. Even though the stories of tragedy and heroism are not
fully known, the destruction has been wrought and the process of healing
The participation of the Virginia Tech Army ROTC in the ceremonies
following this tragedy will be integral to the healing process. The
Cadet Corp will participate in the convocation, flag raising ceremonies,
and will help with student support. The Army ROTC cadets are motivated
young men and women who will one day swear an oath to protect our
nation. They will take on this obligation knowing that they will be
placed in harms way to push the fight in the Global War on Terror
forward. However, at the present time they will be called upon to serve
their fellow students. They will stand up at a difficult time and
represent the proud military institutions of this country.
The Virginia Tech Cadet Corp's history is the history of Virginia Tech.
The school was opened as a military academy in 1872 and its corp of
cadets have honorably served this country in every war since. During
World War II, 7,285 Virginia Tech alumni served in uniform with three
hundred and twenty three of them being killed. It is ironic that one of
the first stories of heroism coming out of this tragedy is that of
Professor Liviu Librescu, 76, a holocaust survivor.
Professor Librescu was an engineering science and mathematics lecturer
at Virginia Tech for 20 years. Students in his class have reported that
he held the door to his classroom shut to give the students time to
escape through a window. He died when the gunman shot through the door
to gain entrance to the room. In the 1940's the students of Virginia
Tech answered the call to fight Nazi Germany and years later Professor
Librescu answered the call to protect the students of Virginia Tech.
In honor of the students and professors who died in this tragic event
and the sacrifices made by the Virginia Tech Corp of Cadets for our
country, Soldiers' Angels is giving $10, 000.00 to the Virginia Tech Army
ROTC Alumni Endowment Fund. Soldiers' Angels challenges the nation to
double this amount by logging onto http://www.armyrotc.vt.edu/ or by
sending donations to Virginia Tech Army ROTC, Account # 872289, 226
Military Building, Blacksburg, VA 24061. The donation you make will help
the Virginia Tech Cadet Corp continue on so that it may live up to its
motto of "UT PROSIM" - That I may move Forward.
In the time honored tradition of civilian support of American soldiers,
Soldiers' Angels sponsors programs which provide support to American
soldiers and their families. Soldiers' Angels' programs include first
responder packs, support, and laptop computers to wounded soldiers who
are receiving treatment at American military hospitals; care packages,
letters, and support to deployed soldiers; armored blankets to military
ambulances; items shipped for deployed soldiers to give children in the
war zone; and memorial trees for the families of soldiers who have died
in the service of their country.
BlackFive posts about Marine Staff Sergeant Marcus Golczynski and the photograph taken of his son at the Marine's funeral. Staff Sergeant Golczynski was on his second tour in Iraq. He was there by choice, because he believed in the mission. All of us do not have the mettle to be a soldier (and even fewer have what it takes to be a Marine), but everyone of us can support those who do.
The photograph below was taken by Aaron Thompson and shows a Marine Colonel handing the flag, which draped Staff Sergeant Golczynski's coffin, to his eight year old son. Look at this picture think of the sacrifice made by Staff Sergeant Golczynski. Think of the fact that this man with a beautiful young family was on his second tour in Iraq and died leading Marines in a gunfight against an enemy that wants you, your family, your country, and your way of life destroyed. Ask yourself if you could do more to help our military personnel. If you know you should do more, go to www.SoldiersAngels.org ( or the military charity of your choice) and do more. Given the sacrifice made by Staff Sergeant Golczynski, his family and so many others in our nation, it is truly the least that you can do.
If the Broadway musical, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, was to be recast in Louisiana, Charles Foti and John Breaux could be the lead characters. The facts would have to be tinkered with a bit, but the new plot would not stray too far from the original. Breaux of course would be the lovelorn Hero, who rather than pining for the love of the Philia, he pines to live at the stately Louisiana Governor’s Mansion. Foti would be cast as Psuedolus, but rather than scheming to help Hero win the heart of the young courtesan, he is scheming to help Breaux seduce the voters of Louisiana. The plot would thicken when, through the manipulative use of the Attorney General Opinions, Foti works to ingratiate himself with the state democrats and save himself from a tough inter-party election battle.
The problem with this storyline is that Foti’s role in this play puts him in a “damned if I do, or damned if I don’t” position. First, the use of the power of the Attorney General to issue opinions is spurious in this case. La. R.S. 49:251 requires the Attorney General to issue his opinion “upon all questions of law when required by the governor, the state auditor or the state treasurer.” He shall also advise district attorneys on matters if requested to do so by them and he shall render an opinion regarding the applicability of the public bid law when requested by any state board, agency or commission or by any political subdivision, except parish and municipal governments.
This law provides the only instances in which it is proper for the Attorney General to issue an “Opinion”. As stated in prior Attorney General Opinions, the Attorney General is not authorized to issue an Opinion which, in essence, provides legal advice to a private citizen. See Opinion Number 93-547.
The request from State Representatives Daniel and LaFleur is, in essence, a request for the issuance of an Opinion for a private citizen - even if John Breaux is a citizen of Louisiana. Regardless of the present status of Breaux’s citizenship, the Opinion request by Daniel and LaFleur is an inappropriate request. Any answer provided by Foti is equally inappropriate, and is an improper use of the powers of the taxpayer funded Attorney General’s Office.The second problem faced by Foti is, that in order to render an Opinion in favor of Breaux, he would have to go against established Louisiana law and prior opinions of the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office.
Several recent news articles have stated that the term “citizen of the state” as used in Art. 4, sec. 2 of the Louisiana Constitution has not been clearly defined in Louisiana law. This is simply incorrect and Breaux’s status as a “citizen of the state” for the last five years is not clouded in the shroud of mystery that his camp would like the voters of Louisiana to believe.
Breaux’s status as a candidate for Governor hinges upon whether he has been a “citizen of the state” for the five years preceding the date he qualifies for office. Breaux was born in Louisiana and served the State in Congress as both a Representative and Senator. There is no issue that he was at one time a “citizen of the state.” The issue is whether or not he somehow purposefully changed his status to be a citizen of another state or, by his actions or absence from the State, forfeited his citizenship.
To know whether Breaux lost his citizenship, one must first determine what is a “citizen of the state.” The status of a citizen of a state is to be determined by the laws of the state and is not based upon the laws of the United States, “To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty - the right to declare who are its citizens.” State v. Fowler 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 So. 602 (La. 1889). The term citizen, while not defined in the Louisiana Constitution or the Louisiana Statutes, is clearly defined by the Louisiana Supreme Court.
In State v. Willie 130 La. 454, 58 So. 147 (La. 1912), the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the definition of citizen in regard to the eligibility of a juror. The law in question required a juror “to be a citizen of the United States and of this state ...”. The issue of the eligibility of a particular person to be a juror was compared to the eligibility of the person to be an elector. The Court, in discussing the status of a citizen, stated, “Citizenship may be acquired by residence, with the intention of remaining.” This definition of citizenship, as being acquired by residence with the intent of remaining, has been upheld by subsequent Louisiana Supreme Court and lower court cases. See Sturm v. Hutchison 37 So. 2d 45 (La. 1948); Lee v. Memphis 192 La. 157, 187 So. 276 (La. 1939); Salvatierra v. Calderon 836 So. 2d 149 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/2/02).
Additionally, The Attorney General of the State of Louisiana addressed the issue of whether the “term ‘citizen of the state’ could be interpreted to mean ‘resident of the state’ for purposes of determining eligibility for payment from” the Fishermen’s Gear Fund. In his opinion, the Attorney General cited the case of State v. Fowler, supra and stated, “that a person who resides in the state, and who has manifested his intention to make Louisiana his residence and domicile, may be considered a ‘citizen’ for the purpose of holding public office, although such person is not a citizen of the United States. “ La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 83-609, 1983 WL 177203 (La.A.G. 1983).
Thus, the definition of a “citizen of the state” is clearly defined by the Louisiana Supreme Court as being acquired by residence, with the intention of remaining. The next step in the analysis is to determine what is the residence of one who is a citizen. The definition used for citizenship by the courts and governmental entities of this state is necessarily intertwined with the definitions of domicile and residence.
The general legal principle is that a citizen may have only one domicile, but may have more than one residence. Louisiana Civil Code Title II, Of Domicile and the Manner of Changing the Same, C.C. art. 38 states, “The domicile of each citizen is in the parish wherein he has his principal establishment. The principal establishment is that in which he makes his habitual residence...” Inherent in the idea of residence is the fact that one actually “lives” in a particular place.
It is important to note that only a citizen can have a domicile. A citizen can move his domicile from one place to another within the state, C.C. Art. 41, 43. A citizen who leaves the state and does not maintain a habitual residence in the state, does not automatically lose his domiciliary status solely because of his absence from the state. He maintains what is termed a legal or ancient domicile C.C. art. 44, 45. However, a citizen forfeits his domicile, according to C.C. Art. 46, by “a voluntary absence of two years from the State, or the acquisition of residence in any other State of this Union, or elsewhere ...”
Thus, Louisiana law provides that in order to be a citizen of the state one must have a residence and have the intention of remaining in that residence. This residence, in which a citizen resides, is called his domicile. If one no longer has a residence in the state, he no longer has a domicile in the state, and thus no longer has a place in which he habitually lives. If one no longer habitually lives in the state, then he no longer has the intention of remaining in the state.
If one establishes a domicile in a new state, he loses the citizenship of this state. If one absents himself from Louisiana for over two years and does not maintain a domicile, whether or not he establishes a new domicile, his citizenship is forfeited. This occurs as a function of the fact that the failure to maintain a domicile is synonymous with the failure to maintain the intention to remain in the state. Either way the issue of citizenship is directly tied to the issue of domicile for it is through the establishment of a domicile that citizenship is created and through the change of domicile that it is lost.
One amazing aspect of the law is that there are truly very few issues, which in one form or another, have not been previously hashed out in the legal system. The Breaux citizenship question is no different.
In Walden v. Canfield 2 Rob. (LA) 466 (La. 1842), 1842 WL 1743, the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether Edward Livingston lost his domicile as a result of his leaving the state of Louisiana to serve the Union as Senator, Secretary of State, and Ambassador to France. In its analysis the court cited La. C.C. art. 46, which stated and still states, “A citizen accepting a temporary and precarious office, or one from which he may be removed at pleasure, retains his ancient domicile.” The court concluded, “It is in accordance with the provisions of our Code, and we feel no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Edward Livingston, successively Senator in Congress, Secretary of State, and Ambassador to France, retained his ancient domicile in Louisiana; it not having been shown that he ever did any act which evinced any intention on his part to acquire a domicil elsewhere.”
The Court, in essence, decided that Mr. Livingston, even though he had moved out of the state and did not maintain a residence in the state, did not lose his domicile because he had moved out of the state for the purpose of serving the state in the federal government and “it not having been shown that he ever did any act which evinced any intention on his part to acquire a domicil elsewhere.” This decision was made in accordance with the provision of La. C.C. art. 46 and would be equally applicable to Breaux.
Therefore, the issue, of whether Breaux is a “citizen of the state”, is tied to whether or not Breaux has done any act which evinced any intention on his part to acquire a domicile elsewhere.” This is important because, according to Louisiana law, a “domicile” is the residence of a citizen. Thus, if Breaux established a domicile outside of Louisiana, then he became a citizen of the new state.
The most obvious and undisputed step taken by Breaux to evince his intention to establish a domicile outside of the state was his registration as an elector in the State of Maryland. Eligibility for voter registration in the State of Maryland required, among other things, that the voter be a U.S. Citizen and a Maryland resident on the date that he registered to vote. An. Code 1957, art. 33, sec. 3-102. The State of Maryland requires a “resident” to be domiciled in Maryland.
The State of Maryland defines domicile as “the place that you consider to be your ‘official’ or ‘permanent’ home, even though it may be different from where you are living on a short-term or temporary basis.” Maryland law also prevents a person from willingly or knowingly falsifying “residence in an attempt to register in the wrong location.” Additionally, under Maryland voting laws, the use of the word citizen is synonymous with domicile. Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections Baltimore City 243 Md. 555, 221 A2d 431 (1966). When registering to vote in Maryland a person must “Under the penalty of perjury, swear or affirm ... I am a Maryland resident...”. If the person registering to vote in Maryland is registered to vote in another state they must also complete another section of the form showing where they were last registered. See Maryland Voter Registration Application.
It must be remembered that the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Fowler , supra, held that anyone who is allowed to vote in a State is ipso facto a citizen of that State. “Therefore a person may be a citizen of the state, and may not be invested with electoral power. It is, however, difficult to conceive how a person can be an elector and not a citizen of the community in which he exercises the right to vote.”
John Breaux, despite his years of faithful service to the State of Louisiana, made the fateful decision to establish a new domicile in the State of Maryland. He evinced this intent when he accepted the mantle of an elector in the State of Maryland. In doing so he accepted what the Fowler court described as “one of the most important duties, and highest and proudest privileges of citizenship. The elector is therefore one of the sovereign people, a member of the civil state, and entitled to all of its privileges.” John Breaux can come back home, he can reestablish his domicile, and in doing so can reestablish his citizenship, but he cannot comply with the requirements of Art. 4, sec. 2 because he lost his Louisiana citizenship when he became a citizen of the State of Maryland.
Rather than talking about a Broadway musical, maybe we should discuss a retelling of the parable of the prodigal son. In this remake John Breaux returns home and is served a fattened calf (in the form of an Attorney General Opinion) and while he may be accepted back with open arms by his Democrat family, the electors of Louisiana will not be able to conclude the story by casting a ballot for him this Fall.