1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why stop at the 14th?

Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by Engyo, Aug 6, 2010.

  1. Engyo

    Engyo Prince of Dorkness!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,386
    Ratings:
    +825
    Ditch the 14th Amendment? Why stop there?

    By Roland S. Martin, CNN Contributor
    August 6, 2010 9:06 a.m. EDT

    (CNN) -- Republicans such as Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Kyl and John Cornyn are tripping over themselves to jump on the latest "Dumb Way to Solve the Illegal Immigration Problem" bus by suggesting Congress examine repealing the 14th Amendment, which deals with one way of becoming a U.S. citizen.

    The far right has latched onto the idea that the provision in question -- which grants citizenship to children born in the U.S. -- is being abused by illegal immigrants who choose to come to America to have their children, thus worsening the illegal immigration problem.

    Some are even trying to suggest that how it is being used today is counter to the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

    Of course, the 14th Amendment was not in the first U.S. Constitution as drawn up by our framers. It was adopted on July 9, 1868, to prevent Southern states from denying citizenship to former slaves and their children, since they didn't choose to come to America. They were brought here for the purpose of the vicious and dehumanizing free-labor plan that helped build the nation -- slavery.

    It's clear that overall Congress is choosing to apply a Band-Aid to the illegal immigration problem instead of dealing with it head-on.

    We have members on both sides of the aisle who care more about protecting their precious jobs and partisan poll numbers instead of actually finding a bipartisan solution. So instead of leadership, we get asinine suggestions like this one, which will do absolutely nothing about the estimated 10 million illegal immigrants in the country.

    That's right, nothing.

    So what is the GOP's plan? To make it retroactive? OK, how about we take it all the way back and toss out all of the white descendants and anyone else non-Native American.

    They were here first, and all of us are simply intruding on the land that was theirs. Who thinks Graham, Kyl, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the other bumbling idiots we call U.S. senators would actually be able to pass the DNA test to establish whether they are Native Americans?

    But hey, since it is in vogue to alter the U.S. Constitution, why don't we just go all out and have congressional hearings to re-examine the entire document? We have blue ribbon panels in Washington for everything else, so why not pop the hood on that old document and bring it into the 21st century?

    For his suggestions (hopefully tongue-in-cheek) see here:
    Ditch the 14th Amendment? Why stop there? - CNN.com
     
  2. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,902
    Ratings:
    +3,255
    This is one of the most disturbing developments in a very long series of disturbing developments in the Republican Party.
     
  3. Engyo

    Engyo Prince of Dorkness!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,386
    Ratings:
    +825
    Yup, they love and honor the Constitution, all right.........[/sarcasm]

     
    #3 Engyo, Aug 6, 2010
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2010
  4. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    I agree. reinstate the 10th amendment by ditching every amendment after the 10th.
     
  5. Mister_T

    Mister_T Forum Relic
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    14,892
    Ratings:
    +1,801
    Religion:
    Spiritual-ish
    I'm sure the Founding Fathers didn't envision people taking high-powered guns and massacring dozens of innocent people when they were writing up the 2nd Amendment, but heavens forbid that anyone should want to amend that you dirty nazi-socialists. :eek:

    Geez, the amount of hypocrisy being displayed by these guys is utterly mindblowing. They love displaying how patriotic they are by touting how they are constitutional "purists".....until it doesn't fit their agenda, then it's A-OK! Gotta love those "real" American values. :rolleyes:
     
  6. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    75,352
    Ratings:
    +36,755
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    The Right is being guided by Far Right kooks like Glenn Beck.
     
  7. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,902
    Ratings:
    +3,255
    "Original intent" is one of the biggest con jobs on the political scene today. Politicians and lawyers, like the guys who wrote the constitution, are skilled at the language of ambiguity and compromise -- language that can be left to be interpreted as the need arises. How in the hell would you determine the "original intent" of dozens of guys who disagreed on almost all the major issues? There was no original intent; there were sharply conflicting intents and a carefully crafted document that resolved some of them and left some for a later date. The fact that they included a procedure for amendment makes it clear, though, that there was one clear intention that they shared, and that was that they did not expect Americans to be bound in perpetuity by the "original intent" of the founders.

    The whole idea that we should be bound by original intent smacks of superstition, idolatry, and rank stupidity. No decent person would want to return to American society as it was ordered in 1787.

    As for Maggie Gallagher, John Kyl, and all those other idiots blathering about what the founding fathers intended, I hope they're not really so very ignorant of U.S. history that they think the founders had anything whatsoever to do with the 14th Amendment.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Neo-Logic

    Neo-Logic Reality Checker

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,225
    Ratings:
    +334
    The founders envisioned a document that could be amended in the future based on future needs.

    The future need necessitated the 14th amendment that was democratically passed (well, arguably democratically).

    Ergo, the 14th amendment is, by the transitive property, what the founders envisioned.
     
  9. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,563
    Ratings:
    +1,321
    Religion:
    Christian
    Why stop indeed? The entire reason the amendment process is there is that there is room for improvement.

    Being a Constitutional "purist"(if that is the term you want to use) isn't a rejection of the Constitutionally sanctioned process of amending, it means that when one finds oneself at issue with what the Constitution says, or does not say, one does not interpret the problem away, you use that very process to change it.

    I'm not agreeing that we should amend or erase the 14th amendment, but I do have to disagree with the characterization of such a stance as hypocritical when held with a stance of strict Constitutional interpretation.
     
  10. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Oldest Heretic

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    16,303
    Ratings:
    +3,695
    Religion:
    Anglican...heretic
    The Constitution of the UK is enshrined in its laws. These were written on rolls of parchment and survive to this day, the earliest from 1199. Predating the Magna Carta.

    The Constitution is amended by the act of passing of new laws.
    Today they must all comply with European legislation.

    With the recent increase in the power of the European Parliament, and over time, European Constitutions will become standardised.

    This has already had an effect on American Ligislators, as they have had to start consulting the European Parliament over international legislative matters, and not just the individual heads of Government.
     
  11. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    47,303
    Ratings:
    +4,471
    Do you have a political agenda?

    The illegal immigrants have agendas.
    It seems to be...escape the poverty of their homeland.
    Anybody seen a documentary how life goes on south of the border?

    But can America absorb such numbers?
    Obviously, the American economy cannot offer haven to one and all.
    Born here or not.

    Has the time come to change the rules?...apparently.
    Has the time come to enforce immigration law already in place?...of course.
    Will the enforcement turn ugly?...you bet.

    Until the internal economic structure can support one and all,
    allowing external influence should be held to a minimal.

    Yesterday, I hear report of an idea found in a magazine.
    Why not annex the entire country of Mexico, and apply American law?
    Just take over the whole miserable situation.

    And you think it won't come to that?

    If American soil is the solution....
    then should we not expand American soil?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Luminous

    Luminous non-existential luminary

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,206
    Ratings:
    +154
    The fourteenth amendment should be ammended to specify that corporations are not people, and that being a corporation was and is a priviledge granted by government.
     
  13. Mister_T

    Mister_T Forum Relic
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    14,892
    Ratings:
    +1,801
    Religion:
    Spiritual-ish
    Wanting to make changes to the constitutional amendments isn't the hypocritical part though, it's the utter lack of consistency in their politics and their reasoning/arguments regarding their "purist" stance: The hypocritical part is when the self-proclaimed purists cry foul over wanting to make changes to one amendment and say that altering the constitution in any way is un-patriotic, un-American, etc, and then do a complete 180 when it's something that fits their one of their own agendas.

    If people want to make changes to certain constitutional amendments that's fine, but if those same people characterize a certain group in a negative light for doing something and then turn around and do the same thing, then yes those people are being hypocritical unfortunately.
     
  14. Luminous

    Luminous non-existential luminary

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,206
    Ratings:
    +154
    This shows how well you know the system established by our progressive founding fathers. the amendment process was put in place precisely to add amendments...:facepalm: the tenth amendment still aplies, it should not be used to allow smaller regions within our country to oppress groups.
     
  15. Father Heathen

    Father Heathen Veteran Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    34,166
    Ratings:
    +19,303
    Conservatives want to wipe their *** with the constitution? Wow, what a shock. :rolleyes:
     
  16. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,563
    Ratings:
    +1,321
    Religion:
    Christian
    I must have missed this...
     
  17. Engyo

    Engyo Prince of Dorkness!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,386
    Ratings:
    +825
    I guess you tuned out on the debates over health care reform, or all the noise that comes up whenever a city like Chicago or DC wants to control handguns within its borders...............
     
  18. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,563
    Ratings:
    +1,321
    Religion:
    Christian
    There is a difference between change and contravention.
     
  19. Engyo

    Engyo Prince of Dorkness!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,386
    Ratings:
    +825
    Nobody's argung that here; you said you missed where the conservative lawmakers were defending the Constitution at any cost, and these discussions were where some of the more egregious examples came from. Now, of course, the shoe is on the other foot; but I guess hypocracy only counts if one's memory reaches back longer than a month or so.
     
  20. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,563
    Ratings:
    +1,321
    Religion:
    Christian
    Again I must have missed where anyone said:
    You noted two situations where people argued against contravening the Constitution, not changing it...
     
Loading...