Republicans Push To Revise 14th Amendment

[MattusMaximus]

For starters, there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that they will be able to get the votes necessary to begin the process to change the constitution. Furthermore, there is even less of a snowball's chance in hell that they will be able to override the inevitable presidential veto. Lastly, getting 3/4 of the states to ratify it would be impossible.

All three steps necessary to do what they are proposing would be impossible without widespread support from both parties.

There's no need to debate whether or not the constitution should be changed in this issue. There is no way they'd get the support to do it anyway. Do you have any clue how difficult it is to change the constitution?

Which is all the more reason to see this effort for what it is: a cynical, politically-motivated ploy to scare & sucker people into voting for the GOP in this November's elections. These jerks are playing with fire catering to crap like this - it's the damn Constitution, and they treat it as a stupid plaything

 

[Manopolus]

Which is all the more reason to see this effort for what it is: a cynical, politically-motivated ploy to scare & sucker people into voting for the GOP in this November's elections. These jerks are playing with fire catering to crap like this - it's the damn Constitution, and they treat it as a stupid plaything

They did the same thing with the gay marriage thing years ago... apparently we needed to change the constitution for that, as well. They actually succeeded at the state level in some places, but it was never really a possibility at the national level.

Republican strategists know quite well that if many of their issues are acted upon, then people will have less reason to vote for them. So they take up divisive non-issues, promise to balance the budget but increase military spending, law enforcement, and a whole lot of pork , while lowering taxes (in other words, not even attempting to do it). It seems to have been part of the paradigm for decades. Oh, and a good war helps too, especially if you can throw out words like freedom and liberty while defying privacy rights technically protected by the constitution, torturing people, and incarcerating people indefinately without a hearing of any kind.

The only campaign promise that they ever follow through on is lowering taxes (on the rich, generally). Honestly, I wouldn't even vote for them in federal elections if I was a socially conservative abortion activist Jesus freak. They just don't do anything that makes any difference other than ruin the economy and alienate our allies (like say, Mexico, members of NATO, and the UN). I find the libertarians preferable to republicans any day of the week if I had to choose a conservative party (which is odd for a progressive).

Their campaigns can be summed up in one word: FEAR. Sometimes it might sound like anger or patriotism, but it's always driven by fear. The only thing it makes sense to be afraid of is the source of that fear: the party itself.

 

[johnny karate]

You've got to be kidding me. No, seriously, I can't believe this one without evidence (though I wouldn't be surprised if it were true). Please pony up the evidence.

Done.

The truly hilarious "smoking gun" video is embedded.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Done.

The truly hilarious "smoking gun" video is embedded.

Holy crapballs

That's... just... reprehensible.

I'm losing my faith in humanity...

 

[Accidental Martyr]

Done.

The truly hilarious "smoking gun" video is embedded.

Beat me to it, but here's another story anyway.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/rep-louie-gohmert-is-scared-of-potential-terrorist-babies/

 

[casebro]

Try actually reading the article, genius. It's not just "one wacky" Congressman, it's the Republican leadership:

So how do you get "Republicans Push To Revise" from "....calling for Senate hearings on whether changes to the 14th Amendment are needed." ?

 

[Lurker]

the purpose of the citizenship section of the 14th Amendment, was to insure former slaves citizenship.

had they known that it would be used 120 years later, to give citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants..and then a bridge for their illegal parents to stay in the USA..they may have written the Amendment a little differently.

i.e. "All persons born within the United States of America, except children of foreign diplomats, children of foreign visitors, and children of illegal aliens, are citizens of the Unites States".

I don't see anything in that amendment that mentions slaves. The authors were not idiots, they generally chose their words carefully.

 

[Lurker]

You've got to be kidding me. No, seriously, I can't believe this one without evidence (though I wouldn't be surprised if it were true). Please pony up the evidence.

My evidence is my ears. I heard it on talk radio yesterday where the host mentioned that terrorists are mingling with the hispanics crossing the border and they they go off on their own to blend into society. And they could have kids here and raise them to be terrorists and we would face a slew of attacks in the future.

It is true, the host said this! I guess the host has never had teenagers. "My lame-o Mom wants me to go to terrorist camp this weekend and I want to hang with my friends and play XBox and drink Pepsi. All I wanted was a Pepsi, just one Pepsi, and she wouldn't give it to me!"

 

[pgwenthold]

So how do you get "Republicans Push To Revise" from "....calling for Senate hearings on whether changes to the 14th Amendment are needed." ?

Because they are just wanting senate hearings for the heck of it?

 

[Brainster]

It's a little bit of theater intended to make the anti-immigrant chorus put up or shut up. No big deal as it will never pass.

 

[Kestrel]

My evidence is my ears. I heard it on talk radio yesterday where the host mentioned that terrorists are mingling with the hispanics crossing the border and they they go off on their own to blend into society. And they could have kids here and raise them to be terrorists and we would face a slew of attacks in the future.

Arabic speaking, middle eastern, Muslims doesn't exactly blend into groups of spanish speaking, hispanic, Catholics. Except in the eyes of bigots who hate anyone who isn't english speaking, white and Protestant.

 

[GreyArea]

I don't see anything in that amendment that mentions slaves. The authors were not idiots, they generally chose their words carefully.

Check out the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which does.

Here's how I understand it: The slaves weren't citizens when they were slaves. Something had to change their status. If the 14th Amendment limited birth citizenship to children of people who were already citizens, it wouldn't it make this change in the status of Freedmen. You'd have a group of people who were no longer slaves but were not explicitly citizens.

Meanwhile, when the Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship, Congress knew that simple legislation would not be strong enough to prevent a rollback. So they passed the 14th Amendment.

A lot of the Amendment's language comes from the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

...and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens...

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...tle=2282&chapter=216253&layout=html&Itemid=27

Emphasis added. This is why white supremacists and white bigots hate this law and the Amendment that strengthened it. They are desperate to police the borders of the Good Us and the Evil Them. One requirement of being part of the Good Us is Looking Like One of Us.


I don't know why the Amendment doesn't have the Act's clarification about who doesn't become a citizen.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States...

Congress was no stranger to the distinction. What caused them to drop it?

 

[GreyArea]

Furthermore, there is even less of a snowball's chance in hell that they will be able to override the inevitable presidential veto.

I don't think the president has a role in the amendment process.

Republican strategists know quite well that if many of their issues are acted upon, then people will have less reason to vote for them. So they take up divisive non-issues...

Many of the extreme cultural conservative notions wouldn't get passed, such as a complete ban of abortion. But they reliably fire up the voter base. Since these policies are never implemented, they can be trotted out every election season. (If they passed, the GOP would have to find something less tested to campaign on.) I suspect the party leaders are content with this state of affairs.

 

[lomiller]

There was not really a concept of "illegal alien" when it was written. Persons wanting to relocate to the US more or less arrived on US soil, and went on in pursuit of their lives. Immigration laws and restrictions, by and large, came later, when more established citizens got uppity about the newer waves of grubby non-English speakers forming communities. The illegal immigrant is largely a creation of the 20th Century, and it's reaction against newcomers.

I was going to say something similar. I very much doubt either the framers of the US constitution or the14th amendment ever thought immigrating to the US would be illegal.

 

[quadraginta]

For starters, there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that they will be able to get the votes necessary to begin the process to change the constitution. Furthermore, there is even less of a snowball's chance in hell that they will be able to override the inevitable presidential veto. Lastly, getting 3/4 of the states to ratify it would be impossible.

All three steps necessary to do what they are proposing would be impossible without widespread support from both parties.

There's no need to debate whether or not the constitution should be changed in this issue. There is no way they'd get the support to do it anyway. Do you have any clue how difficult it is to change the constitution?

Which is all the more reason to see this effort for what it is: a cynical, politically-motivated ploy to scare & sucker people into voting for the GOP in this November's elections. These jerks are playing with fire catering to crap like this - it's the damn Constitution, and they treat it as a stupid plaything

I'm hopeful that these sentiments are accurate, but I have to wonder if similar ones weren't heard right before the 18th Amendment was passed.

And ratified.

 

[Region Rat]

I was going to say something similar. I very much doubt either the framers of the US constitution or the14th amendment ever thought immigrating to the US would be illegal.

My sister-in-law just immigrated from mexico, but she did it according to the established immigration laws, so I guess it's not illegal to immigrate to the US.

Who knew?

 

[lomiller]

My sister-in-law just immigrated from mexico, but she did it according to the established immigration laws, so I guess it's not illegal to immigrate to the US.

If it's not illegal to immigrate, how can there be any illegal immigrants at all?

Perhaps what’s really illegal is not conforming to big governments micro-management of immigration.

 

[Region Rat]

If it's not illegal to immigrate, how can there be any illegal immigrants at all?

Now you're just being obtuse.

Perhaps what’s really illegal is not conforming to big governments micro-management of immigration.

US government laws pertaining to immigration = "big governments micro-management of immigration"

And yes, if you don't conform to "big governments micro-management of immigration", you are performing an illegal act. By definition. I'm not sure how that can be disputed.

 

[lomiller]

And yes, if you don't conform to "big governments micro-management of immigration", you are performing an illegal act. By definition. I'm not sure how that can be disputed.

Then we can agree that the immigration debate isn't about really about immigration but support or opposition to big-government regulating immigration, and punishing those who don’t do what big brother tells them?

 

[Thunder]

I honestly don't believe that the children of illegal aliens should receive automatic citizenship in the USA.

But if they do, then they should not be able to be used as bridges to legalize their illegal parents. Other legal immigrants, yes...but not the illegal parents who bore them.