Two weeks ago, Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham became the highest-ranking Republican officials to lend their voices to what has become an increasingly loud and disturbing refrain on the Right -- the call to repeal the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined the clamor, calling for hearings to evaluate the possibility of repeal. Since then, these Republican leaders have back-tracked and equivocated. But the core of their message remains clear.
With this latest rallying cry, the Republican Party has disowned one of the greatest steps forward in American history, declared its disinterest in real solutions to the crises we now face, and set itself up as an impediment to future progress.
By granting the full and irrevocable rights of citizenship to former slaves and their children, the 14th Amendment began to right the wrongs of the most shameful chapter in our history. But it also fulfilled the basic purpose of a constitutional amendment--it codified an American value, to be applied to new generations and new circumstances.
Some on the Right have argued that the Citizenship Clause is an outdated administrative provision intended only to be applied to the circumstances of 1868. In fact, the clause was integral to the 14th Amendment's promise to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to all Americans--and it was intended as a guarantee that the rights of citizenship would not be taken away from members of future generations on the grounds of animus or political expedience.
Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center, studied the issue extensively last year and concluded that the writers of the 14th Amendment "wisely placed the conditions for automatic citizenship beyond the prejudices and politics of the day, intending to establish 'a constitutional right that cannot be wrested from any class of citizens, or from the citizens of any State by mere legislation.'"
Until recently, the idea of repealing part of the 14th Amendment in order to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants was embraced only by the most radical on the Right. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo in 2007 went so far as to claim that the 14th Amendment never actually guaranteed citizenship to children of illegal immigrants (an idea disproved by Supreme Court precedent and the words of the document itself). More recently, Arizona state senator Russell Pearce, the architect of the state's new draconian anti-immigrant law, agreed, accusing illegal immigrants of "hijacking" the 14th Amendment and using it as a "wedge."
Tancredo and Pearce represent the extreme end of the Republican Party -- the tip of the Right Wing most interested in reactionary posturing on immigration reform and least interested in real solutions. That the Republican leadership is now embracing their radical agenda is as disturbing as it is revealing. Like the GOP's recent attacks on the record of Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall, this assault on the 14th Amendment is a willful attempt to revise American history and values in the name of political expedience. I would remind Republican senators what they never tire of reminding the rest of us--that to ignore the history and values on which our laws are based is irresponsible, and it's dangerous.
Follow Michael B. Keegan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peoplefor
Just in case - - Article V (that's Five for all the Tea Partiers) specifically says "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, . . ."
Where in the he!! is the Party of No going to find 288 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate?
Where do they get the vote of 39 states?
./
Case closed.
./
"Amendment XIV, Section 2 eliminated the three-fifths rule, specifically stating that representation to the House is to be divided among the states according to their respective numbers, counting all persons in each state (except Native Americans who were not taxed). The provision also punished states that did not let all males over the age of 21 vote by reducing their population for purposes of representation in Congress.
With the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, the right to vote in federal elections was extended to women. Eighteen- to twenty-one-year-olds became voters in 1971, with the adoption of Amendment XXVI. But language in this section has been used to support the constitutionality of state laws than deny felons the right to vote."
http://www.justicelearning.org/justice_timeline/amendments.aspx?id=14
Now why do liberals want to go back to the original version of the 14th Amendment again? That would be a return to the days in which women were not allowed to vote!
http://www.eturbonews.com/15529/us-birth-tourism-becoming-flourishing-business
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/03/birth_tourism_i.php
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=130549
Why didn't you bring this up when Bush 43 was President? Just askin'
./
In addition, the SPLC says: "CIS has blamed immigrants, both legal and undocumented, for everything from terrorism to global warming. To make its case seem as strong as possible, CIS often manipulates data, relying on shaky statistics or faulty logic to come to the preordained conclusion that immigration is bad for this country. But CIS studies have been regularly debunked by mainstream academics and think tanks including the Immigration Policy Center, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and America's Voice."
Cites like these do nothing to move the dialog forward.
./
Facts are wonderful things, try using them sometimes.
./
"Thee good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people." - Jeremy Bentham.
The GOP -"Whatever benefits the richest two percent of the population is the greatest good, and everything else is treason and Godless Communism."
./
Harry and Nancy need to give the 'dixie-cans' what they want - a hearing on appealing what this progressive republican party put in place in the 1860s, and want to repeal because this current 'dixie' conservative republican party don't believe full rights for everyone.
When the 14th ammendment was written, the terms 'illegal immigrant' and 'anchor baby' had not been invented, so today's situation and the time when the 14th was written can't really be compared.
Re writing the 14th ammendment makes sense, even more so if the word 'Natural' is inserted in front of 'person'.
./
I have no clue how their studious ignorance can be stopped, and unfortunately, it's the worst virus in the body politic I've ever seen.