Republicans Push To Revise 14th Amendment

[Region Rat]

How does that validate your argument?

Now just what argument would that be? You seem to be under some impression that I'm making a case for emulating Europe. I'm not sure where you're coming from.

 

[Region Rat]

We've already established that being in the Constitution is not a good enough reason for a right to exist. Under certain circumstances, those rights can be revoked.

You're correct so far...

So for any particular right in the Constitution to have meaning, it must have an underlying rationale. I haven't seen one given for the right to bear arms.

That's where you lose it. It just needs the votes to pass it according the the process as outlined in the Constitution. Rationale has nothing to do with it, other than being the reason that people vote for it or not. No good rationale, no votes to pass. Its pretty simple.

Personally, I would say that the right to bear arms is part and parcel of the principles this nation was founded on.

Yes, it was. Enacted 12/15/1791. One of the first, you know. The second actually.

I would also say the same about the 14th amendment. But obviously those wishing to change/revoke the 14th amendment disagree, so I'm wondering what rationale they would offer to maintain the 2nd amendment.

Not so right there. The 14th was enacted 7/9/1868. Almost 100 years after the country was founded. But, the reasoning was good at the time and there was enough votes to pass.

The second amendment has nothing to do with this conversation, and I'm wondering why you keep going back to it.

You absolutely could. And that seems to be the sentiment surrounding the desire to change/revoke the 14th amendment: Popularity vs. principles.

That is why the amending process is more than a simple majority vote. So simple popularity is not enough. But enormous popularity wins the day.

 

[johnny karate]

Now just what argument would that be? You seem to be under some impression that I'm making a case for emulating Europe. I'm not sure where you're coming from.

My original comment was to this post:

I think quite a few are serious about it.

This is not exactly extremism we're talking about. The UK, France and Germany do not grant automatic citizenship solely on the basis of being born within their borders.

There seemed to be a justification being offered that because we're not the only ones doing it, it would be okay to do.

Where I'm coming from is the position that I find that argument to be specious.

 

[Region Rat]

Then, following your logic, there's a good reason to maintain the right to citizenship as enumerated in the 14th amendment. It also exists because the forefathers put it there.

I think you're having a little difficulty with the logic, if you ask me. One has nothing to do with the other. Whether or not I think the 2nd amendment is good or bad has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I think any other amendment is good or bad. Are we clear on this?

Are you trying to suggest that any amendment after the Bill of Rights (1-10) is suspect because the original signors of the Constitution weren't behind it?

No. Show me where I said that.

That would mean that you found the 15th and the 19th amendments suspect, and if that's the truth, then black people and women would like to have a word with you out behind the woodshed

Well, since I didn't suggest that, I guess I'm OK with black people and women, right? Good to know.

 

[Region Rat]

My original comment was to this post:


There seemed to be a justification being offered that because we're not the only ones doing it, it would be okay to do.

Where I'm coming from is the position that I find that argument to be specious.

OK, I see.

I didn't see that post as justification, only a comment that the supporters of the change would not be breaking any new ground.

 

[johnny karate]

That's where you lose it. It just needs the votes to pass it according the the process as outlined in the Constitution. Rationale has nothing to do with it, other than being the reason that people vote for it or not. No good rationale, no votes to pass. Its pretty simple.

I disagree. As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe the rights enumerated in our Constitution are an extension of the principles this country was founded on, and not merely a reflection of the current zeitgeist.

Not so right there. The 14th was enacted 7/9/1868. Almost 100 years after the country was founded.

But I assume that our founding principles were still intact 100 years later.

The second amendment has nothing to do with this conversation, and I'm wondering why you keep going back to it.

Because those that now clamor for a change to the 14th amendment seem to be the same people who proudly proclaim "It's in the Constitution!" in defense of their right to own a gun. The latter is a principled stand, while the former contradicts that principle.

That contradiction strikes me as a great curiosity.

 

[Region Rat]

I disagree. As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe the rights enumerated in our Constitution are an extension of the principles this country was founded on, and not merely a reflection of the current zeitgeist.

It doesn't much matter if you agree or disagree. There exists a process outlined in the Constitution describing the method to amend the Constitution. If the process is followed and the proper approvals are obtained, the Constitution is amended. If I proposed an amendment saying that all females between 21 and 32 have to go out on at least one date with me, but not with you, and I got enough votes and states approval, it becomes an amendment whether you like it or not.

But I assume that our founding principles were still intact 100 years later.

You could assume that, but you may not be right. George Washington had one of the largest Rye distilleries in the colonies, and yet the 18th amendment was passed 120 years later. Go figure.

Because those that now clamor for a change to the 14th amendment seem to be the same people who proudly proclaim "It's in the Constitution!" in defense of their right to own a gun. The latter is a principled stand, while the former contradicts that principle.

That contradiction strikes me as a great curiosity.

First, have you taken a poll to see if it is all the same people who are for changes to the 14th and are also for the 2nd? Is there not a single Republican who supports the 14th as is? Is there not a single Democrat who supports gun rights? You paint with a very broad brush.

But, back on point, I don't see a contradiction at all. It would only make sense that supporters of the rights as described in the Constitution and its Amendments would support their positions by saying "Its in the Constitution", because to get in there, they had to pass vigorous debate and approval process.

It also makes sense that people who do not agree with certain provisions in an Amendment would state their reasons and attempt to go through the very same debate and approval process that put the Amendment there in the first place. For the most part, thats how all of the Amendments got put in there in the first place.

You are very welcome to get the process started to repeal the provision in the second Amendment to keep and bear arms. I will be the one saying "Its in the Constitution", and you will be the one who has to lead the debate and get all of the votes and state approvals to get your amendment to pass. It is your right to do so, and it is not un-American to do so. I personally don't believe it would get past the first level, but that is beside the point.

 

[Apology]

I think you're having a little difficulty with the logic, if you ask me.

Frankly I am having quite a bit of difficulty following your logic. When you said:

Of course there is a good reason to maintain the right keep and bear arms. It is a right enumerated in the second amendment. It exists because the founders put it there.

You could say it still exists because of its popularity, just as you could say the right to freedom of speech still exists because of its popularity. There has been no effort to make an amendment to revoke it.

what did you mean by that? It suggests that only the amendments that were endorsed by the founding fathers are free of suspicion in your eyes, and not the later amendments that were passed after the founding fathers were long gone. Either that, or it suggests that only the amendments that are popular today are still valid. Of course, the 14th amendment is pretty popular too! Sure, it doesn't have the same number of outspoken proponents as the 2nd amendment, but that's probably because nobody has attempted to undermine it before this point.

Maybe what you mean is that the amendments that you like are important, and the ones you don't care for are specious. It seems that many conservatives cry "activist judge!" and "protect the constitution!" when the 2nd amendment is challenged, yet they're perfectly willing to undermine the other, less-popular amendments such as the 14th amendment or even the 17th (senators elected by the people) when it suits their purposes.

 

[Region Rat]

Frankly I am having quite a bit of difficulty following your logic. When you said:

Originally Posted by Region Rat
Of course there is a good reason to maintain the right keep and bear arms. It is a right enumerated in the second amendment. It exists because the founders put it there.

You could say it still exists because of its popularity, just as you could say the right to freedom of speech still exists because of its popularity. There has been no effort to make an amendment to revoke it.

what did you mean by that? It suggests that only the amendments that were endorsed by the founding fathers are free of suspicion in your eyes, and not the later amendments that were passed after the founding fathers were long gone. Either that, or it suggests that only the amendments that are popular today are still valid. Of course, the 14th amendment is pretty popular too! Sure, it doesn't have the same number of outspoken proponents as the 2nd amendment, but that's probably because nobody has attempted to undermine it before this point.

It suggests nothing of the kind. You didn't go back far enough in the thread to see the context of my response. Look here:

Originally posted by johnny karate

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock
As it stands, the solid majority of Americans agree with the Second Amendment, so the probability of getting an Amendment passed to overturn it is rather close to zero.

So then there's really no good reason to maintain the right to bear arms? It only still exists because of its popularity.

Originally Posted by Region Rat
Of course there is a good reason to maintain the right keep and bear arms. It is a right enumerated in the second amendment. It exists because the founders put it there.

You could say it still exists because of its popularity, just as you could say the right to freedom of speech still exists because of its popularity. There has been no effort to make an amendment to revoke it.

Bob states there is solid support for the 2nd amendment. Johnny says then there is no reason to keep it except for popularity. I state that the reason we keep it is because it is in the constitution. If you can't follow that, I'm not holding your hand anymore.

Maybe what you mean is that the amendments that you like are important, and the ones you don't care for are specious.

No, that is not what I mean. I have made myself clear. They are all valid because they are constitutional amendments. However, it is quite clearly spelled out in the Constitution that there exists a process to amend it. Therefore, anything is open to debate and change if the process is followed.

It seems that many conservatives cry "activist judge!" and "protect the constitution!" when the 2nd amendment is challenged, yet they're perfectly willing to undermine the other, less-popular amendments such as the 14th amendment or even the 17th (senators elected by the people) when it suits their purposes.

You know why? Because judges are not empowered with changing the Constitution. They are empowered to interpret and uphold the Constitution. Judges who use spurious logic to defend a position that may conflict with the Constitution are open to criticism.

And using words like 'undermine' is not helping your position. They are doing no such thing. You'll have to explain how starting a debate on a topic and discussing the introduction of an amendment is considered undermining.

Using your logic, the people who introduced and debated the 21st Amendment undermined the Constitution.

 

[Apology]

Let me revisit some of our exchange of ideas here, Region Rat.

I think you're having a little difficulty with the logic, if you ask me. One has nothing to do with the other. Whether or not I think the 2nd amendment is good or bad has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I think any other amendment is good or bad. Are we clear on this?

So you say, but I'm not sure you're really sincere about this sentiment.

Are you trying to suggest that any amendment after the Bill of Rights (1-10) is suspect because the original signors of the Constitution weren't behind it?

No. Show me where I said that.

You didn't say so explicitly, but you certainly implied it back here in post 182. About the 2nd amendment, you said:

Personally, I would say that the right to bear arms is part and parcel of the principles this nation was founded on.

Yes, it was. Enacted 12/15/1791. One of the first, you know. The second actually.

which suggests that the fact that the 2nd was passed earlier rather than later adds credibility to the 2nd amendment.

Then, about the 14th, you said:

I would also say the same about the 14th amendment. But obviously those wishing to change/revoke the 14th amendment disagree, so I'm wondering what rationale they would offer to maintain the 2nd amendment.

Not so right there. The 14th was enacted 7/9/1868. Almost 100 years after the country was founded. But, the reasoning was good at the time and there was enough votes to pass.

which suggests that the fact that the 14th was passed over 100 years later somehow makes it less a principle that this nation was founded on, and implies that it's less important than the older amendments.

Well, since I didn't suggest that, I guess I'm OK with black people and women, right? Good to know.

I can accept that you're fine with women and black people, but you most certainly did suggest that the newer amendments aren't as important and/or valid as the older ones.

And now let's move on to your newest post:

Bob states there is solid support for the 2nd amendment. Johnny says then there is no reason to keep it except for popularity. I state that the reason we keep it is because it is in the constitution. If you can't follow that, I'm not holding your hand anymore.

The 14th amendment is also in the Constitution. If that's a good enough reason for keeping the 2nd Amendment, it's certainly a good enough reason for keeping the 14th. I agree that popularity should have nothing to do with it. The least popular amendments are generally the ones that we need the most.

No, that is not what I mean. I have made myself clear. They are all valid because they are constitutional amendments. However, it is quite clearly spelled out in the Constitution that there exists a process to amend it. Therefore, anything is open to debate and change if the process is followed.

Granted. However, you aren't making yourself clear, you only think you're making yourself clear. If you'd made yourself clear, I wouldn't have any questions about what you're trying to say.

You know why? Because judges are not empowered with changing the Constitution. They are empowered to interpret and uphold the Constitution. Judges who use spurious logic to defend a position that may conflict with the Constitution are open to criticism.

As far as I know, that's all that judges do---interpret and uphold the Constitution. The fact that their interpretation of the Constitution differs from yours does not make their logic spurious, nor does it mean that their rulings conflict with the Constitution. If you can come up with an example of a judicial ruling that "changes the Constitution by using spurious logic to defend a position that may conflict with the Constitution," by all means, start another thread, and I'm sure we could discuss it at length.

And using words like 'undermine' is not helping your position. They are doing no such thing. You'll have to explain how starting a debate on a topic and discussing the introduction of an amendment is considered undermining.

Starting a debate does nothing to undermine the 14th Amendment or the Constitution, that much is true. However, what amendment could there be to the 14th Amendment that wouldn't completely undermine its meaning?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Where is the wiggle room in this text? There isn't any. It clearly says that ALL PERSONS BORN IN THE U.S. are citizens. It doesn't say "Except for those whose parents weren't citizens." To amend that portion of the 14th Amendment is to undermine it entirely.

Using your logic, the people who introduced and debated the 21st Amendment undermined the Constitution.

They didn't undermine the constitution, but they certainly undermined the 18th amendment out of existence completely. It's my opinion that the 18th amendment didn't follow the spirit of the bill of rights or the other amendments, mainly to bestow rights that weren't explicitly in the original text of the Constitution and to further define some Constitutional rights in a very explicit way.

For instance, the Constitution doesn't say that senators must be directly elected by vote of the people; therefore, the 17th amendment was required to make sure that the people got to elect their own representatives. The Constitution said in Article I Section 3 that letting the State Legislatures appoint Senators was fine. It didn't become necessary to convey that right to the people until the 1850s, when legislatures were unable to agree on who to appoint and seats were left empty.

It's my firm belief that any attempt to refuse citizenship to any person born on U.S. soil will undermine the meaning of the 14th amendment and render it essentially meaningless.

_{*The other sections are about voting rights and representation in Congress, so we needn't discuss them now}

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It's my firm belief that any attempt to refuse citizenship to any person born on U.S. soil will undermine the meaning of the 14th amendment and render it essentially meaningless.

Ignoring the semantical quibble about whether the change under discussion would "undermine" the fourteenth amendment, how would it be rendered meaningless?

My preferred course of action is to limit the automatic grant of citizenship to the children born in the US to alien parents to those births where both parents were legally present in the US at the time of birth. F1 student brings his F2 wife and gets her knocked up in his second year of grad school? Che bel vivere, your kid is a US citizen. A couple jump the fence and squirt out a kid? No es bueno, senor y senora.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We've already established that being in the Constitution is not a good enough reason for a right to exist. Under certain circumstances, those rights can be revoked. So for any particular right in the Constitution to have meaning, it must have an underlying rationale. I haven't seen one given for the right to bear arms.

Personally, I would say that the right to bear arms is part and parcel of the principles this nation was founded on. I would also say the same about the 14th amendment. But obviously those wishing to change/revoke the 14th amendment disagree, so I'm wondering what rationale they would offer to maintain the 2nd amendment.

You have it exactly backward.

No rational is needed for maintaining anything in the Constitution as it is. Whatever rationale was behind anything in the Constitution had to be established at the time it was added thereto.

It is entirely up to anyone who proposes changing the Constitution to offer a very solid rationale for that change, sufficient to convince the necessary portion of the populace to support that change, in order to proceed with the Amendment process.

Nobody needs to provide any rational to support the Second Amendment. It's already established as a solid, Constitutionally-protected right.

It is entirely on those who would revoke this right to make the case strongly enough to get the population to adequately support a new Amendment to overturn the Second. Given that the majority of Americans still support this right, the probability of this Amendment happening is quite close to zero.


The right of anyone born in the U.S. to be a citizen thereof is also a Constitutionally-established right. Unlike the right to keep and bear arms, this right is one which is widely seen as being abused by illegal aliens, and there is growing support for eliminating it.

It is still entirely on those of us who support changing the Constitution to eliminate automatic citizenship for those born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents, to provide the rationale for this change, and to gain sufficient public support for an Amendment to enact this change. Until and unless we succeed in doing so, the citizenship-by-birth rule remains in effect.

 

[Region Rat]

Let me revisit some of our exchange of ideas here, Region Rat.

This is getting tedious, and the taking of quotes out of context and telling me what I mean is not going to get any more follow up from me after this.

So you say, but I'm not sure you're really sincere about this sentiment.

So I said, and so I meant. Can you read minds?

You didn't say so explicitly, but you certainly implied it back here in post 182. About the 2nd amendment, you said:



which suggests that the fact that the 2nd was passed earlier rather than later adds credibility to the 2nd amendment.

I didn't imply anything. I said, in response to Johnny about the 2nd being part and parcel of the founders principles, that it was because it was approved by the founders. Nothing about credibility. That is a fact. Can you dispute that?

Then, about the 14th, you said:



which suggests that the fact that the 14th was passed over 100 years later somehow makes it less a principle that this nation was founded on, and implies that it's less important than the older amendments.

No again. Jeez. Johnny said "I could say the same thing about the 14th." I said it was approved 100 years later. That is a fact. Can you dispute that. Why do you insist I have other motives?

I can accept that you're fine with women and black people, but you most certainly did suggest that the newer amendments aren't as important and/or valid as the older ones.

You are full of it. I even said "...Almost 100 years after the country was founded. But, the reasoning was good at the time and there was enough votes to pass". I will not respond to this line anymore.

And now let's move on to your newest post:


The 14th amendment is also in the Constitution. If that's a good enough reason for keeping the 2nd Amendment, it's certainly a good enough reason for keeping the 14th. I agree that popularity should have nothing to do with it. The least popular amendments are generally the ones that we need the most.

Try to keep up, please. The fact that the 2nd is in the constitution does not automatically mean it is a good enough reason to keep it. It has been stated again and again. If there was enough popular sentiment to remove it, and amendment could be introduced to restrict firearm ownership. If it had enough support, votes and state approval, as listed in the constitutional process, it could be revoked. Just like the 18th. It has been done. Clear?

Granted. However, you aren't making yourself clear, you only think you're making yourself clear. If you'd made yourself clear, I wouldn't have any questions about what you're trying to say.

No, when you are only looking for hidden meanings and implications, rather than reading the words, and just looking for gotcha's, you tend to have comprehension problems.

Most of this is basic High School Government class. If you don't understand the process for amending the constitution, look it up.

As far as I know, that's all that judges do---interpret and uphold the Constitution. The fact that their interpretation of the Constitution differs from yours does not make their logic spurious, nor does it mean that their rulings conflict with the Constitution. If you can come up with an example of a judicial ruling that "changes the Constitution by using spurious logic to defend a position that may conflict with the Constitution," by all means, start another thread, and I'm sure we could discuss it at length.

You brought up 'activist judges' in your diatribe against the right up above. If you didn't want to mention judges again, you shouldn't have brought it up.

Starting a debate does nothing to undermine the 14th Amendment or the Constitution, that much is true. However, what amendment could there be to the 14th Amendment that wouldn't completely undermine its meaning?

The whole point of the debate is to remove provisions in the 14th amendment. The debate does not undermine the constitution, it is part of the constitutional process. If, in fact, an amendment passes that removes some provisions, those provisions are 'repealed'. Your continues use of undermine suggests nefarious activity.

Where is the wiggle room in this text? There isn't any. It clearly says that ALL PERSONS BORN IN THE U.S. are citizens. It doesn't say "Except for those whose parents weren't citizens." To amend that portion of the 14th Amendment is to undermine it entirely.

Who said anything about wiggle room. The supporters of the changes are indeed looking to remove and/or change that text. That is the whole debate. Did you not realize that? To amend that portion would repeal it, it constitutional terms. Entirely legal and above board.

They didn't undermine the constitution, but they certainly undermined the 18th amendment out of existence completely. It's my opinion that the 18th amendment didn't follow the spirit of the bill of rights or the other amendments, mainly to bestow rights that weren't explicitly in the original text of the Constitution and to further define some Constitutional rights in a very explicit way.

<sigh> REPEAL

For instance, the Constitution doesn't say that senators must be directly elected by vote of the people; therefore, the 17th amendment was required to make sure that the people got to elect their own representatives. The Constitution said in Article I Section 3 that letting the State Legislatures appoint Senators was fine. It didn't become necessary to convey that right to the people until the 1850s, when legislatures were unable to agree on who to appoint and seats were left empty.

So what?

It's my firm belief that any attempt to refuse citizenship to any person born on U.S. soil will undermine the meaning of the 14th amendment and render it essentially meaningless.

_{*The other sections are about voting rights and representation in Congress, so we needn't discuss them now}

That's fine, and that is one side of the debate. There is another side, and the process to debate and potentially change it is perfectly leagal and well defined in the constitution. So what is the problem?

 

[Region Rat]

To Apology:

Oh, look, it seems some Democrats tried to undermine the constitution a while back.

In addition, several Democratic congressmen, including Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. José Serrano,[3] Rep. Howard Berman,[4] and Sen. Harry Reid[5], have introduced legislation to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, but each resolution died before making it out of its respective committee. There have also been proposals to remove the absolute two term limit and replace it with no more than two consecutive terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I guess they didn't get the memo.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

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.

Exactly how does the 14th amendment allow illegal aleins to remain in the U.S.?

please elaborate, cite laws, statistics, case studies, ect.

Of course you won't, because you can't.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

So, why should the fact that these parents illegally came into our nation, and were here in violation of our laws when the child was born, entitle that child to any different citizenship than if they stayed in Mexico?

Because the parents want a better life for their child, you would punnish the child?

this country was built by people seeking a better life for themselves and thier children.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

An Amendment to change this, it seems, would have a reasonable chance of passing.

I don't think so.

This is not a technical change like most of the recent amendments, this is a fundamental change in the philosphy of the Constitution.

I think that the majority (and not the vocal mionority) of people would be hisitant to make that change.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I doubt this challenge to change the 14th ammendment will even come to a vote. This is just another gimmick to energize the racist base of the conservative voting block.

 

[SOdhner]

I don't really understand the outrage here. I'm always on the liberal side of these discussions but this just doesn't seem like a big deal. If anyone wants to change any part of the constitution it should be taken very seriously and they should be required to show a serious reason that it needs to be changed. If they can do so, and they follow the process and everyone votes for it, then we change the constitution.

Do I think they can make a strong enough argument for this? No. Do I think that they would get the votes? No. Do I think this change would be the end of civilization as we know it? No.

I mean, if it was originally written in a way that allowed certain groups (children of slaves) to become citizens and not others (people who are not legal immigrants) I don't think it would have been seen as unreasonable. We can bicker about whether or not things would have turned out better or worse than they are but that's a seriously complicated issue and any attempt we make of it here is no better than an alternate history paperback you buy in the airport because you once again forgot to bring that thing you've been promising to read.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Pipeline: Names are totally irrelevant to the data, you're right. You didnt' change the goalposts, you gave a red herring.