tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post589858239447959441..comments2024-01-05T06:18:18.086-05:00Comments on CommentaramaPolitics: Amending the 14th Amendment, Another Fake Out?AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-15850507050448264402010-08-07T19:02:23.060-04:002010-08-07T19:02:23.060-04:00Had the same thought.Had the same thought.Mobiusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-5600814862002157072010-08-07T12:03:20.832-04:002010-08-07T12:03:20.832-04:00Crispy, Don't get me started on the executive ...Crispy, Don't get me started on the executive orders! Ug!AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-8009745051616719232010-08-06T11:48:29.435-04:002010-08-06T11:48:29.435-04:00Who needs a constitutional amendment when O can ju...Who needs a constitutional amendment when O can just sign an executive order??<br><br>Oh wait...CrispyRicehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07302075204880024936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-27565375140452032072010-08-05T15:59:42.238-04:002010-08-05T15:59:42.238-04:00Mega, Yeah, that's a huge tip off.Mega, Yeah, that's a huge tip off.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-84856110977674076662010-08-05T15:59:30.191-04:002010-08-05T15:59:30.191-04:00Ed, We like to respond to comments because we want...Ed, We like to respond to comments because we want everyone to share their views. We're here for a conversation, not just to put out articles.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-14185471601969355422010-08-05T15:58:13.529-04:002010-08-05T15:58:13.529-04:00Strangely, I'm not surprised this is a fake ou...Strangely, I'm not surprised this is a fake out. As soon as I saw Graham, I knew something was wrong.MegaTrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03234420338804013858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-78724940058124235412010-08-05T14:08:03.585-04:002010-08-05T14:08:03.585-04:00Don't worry about it, I'm not offended. I...Don't worry about it, I'm not offended. I'm just glad that you guys answer comments. So many other blogs just ignore whatever you say.Ednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-25992301894593220382010-08-04T16:09:30.156-04:002010-08-04T16:09:30.156-04:00Lawhawk, I share your prayer!And you're right ...Lawhawk, I share your prayer!<br><br>And you're right about the description of the various political groups. The RINOs just want to be liked. . . they should try being liked by our side for a change.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-59596052069112057672010-08-04T15:48:09.325-04:002010-08-04T15:48:09.325-04:00Andrew: Sadly, to liberals "immigration refo...Andrew: Sadly, to liberals "immigration reform" means "amnesty. To conservatives "immigration reform" means "immigration reform." To RINOs, "immigration reform" means "let's help the Democrats pass amnesty by pretending to oppose it with a never-gonna-happen Constitutional Amendment."<br><br>As a believer in prayer, I'm praying that the RINO plan backfires and the Amendment passes, but I also recognize that God frequently says "no" in answer to a prayer request.LawHawkRFDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-29261164809481003892010-08-04T15:22:02.040-04:002010-08-04T15:22:02.040-04:00Lawhawk, I'm not saying it's not worth try...Lawhawk, I'm not saying it's not worth trying, but I don't think it has much of a chance.<br><br>Beyond that, I agree with you completely -- our politicians have no will to deal with this issue, even though the people want it solved.<br><br>Even worse, I sense that this will be an attempt at exploitation more than legislation. I see this as something some supposedly on the right will use as fund raisers and as "safe" promises they can make that they know they will never need to pay on. And the left will play up the danger for their own fund raisers. It's twisted.<br><br>In reality, this is something that really does need to be done, but that's not how politicians work.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-14131447305679606392010-08-04T14:33:55.258-04:002010-08-04T14:33:55.258-04:00Andrew: I didn't say it would work, but I sta...Andrew: I didn't say it <i>would</i> work, but I stand by my belief that it <i>could</i> work. The first portion is either/or (born or naturalized). The second portion is <i>and</i>. That gives the Congress the ability to determine jurisdiction over both. It can't change "birth" but it can change the circumstances of the birth (for instance, children born overseas in a foreign nation to American citizens or alternatively, children born to foreign diplomats in the United States who choose not to have children born here become American citizens). <br><br>My point was not so much to get into a disagreement on the meaning of the Constitution on the issue (there are legal scholars on both sides, and my view is the minority view, yours is the majority view), but rather that Congress will never try it in the first place. And for that reason alone, I am in total agreement that 1) a Constitutional Amendment is the only realistic way to change the rule, and 2) It won't happen (unfortunately).LawHawkRFDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-60946872058374125622010-08-04T14:16:49.773-04:002010-08-04T14:16:49.773-04:00Ed, Sorry, I missed your comment somehow.I have si...Ed, Sorry, I missed your comment somehow.<br><br>I have similar reservations about Kyl. He prefers to use federal power to easily. The thing with Feinstein was an attempt to put "victim's rights" into the Constitution, which would create all kinds of problems. His heart is in a better place than the RINOs, but his methods trouble me.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-36219365405553673882010-08-04T13:42:36.093-04:002010-08-04T13:42:36.093-04:00Lawhawk, I don't think that will work because ...Lawhawk, I don't think that will work because that part expands on the rest of the clause to add that people not born on US soil can also be made citizens. A congressional law could change that definition, but could not use that definition to undo the rest of the clause, which is written in pretty unambiguous language.<br><br>I guess it's worth a shot, but I think that will just be shot down by the courts.<br><br>Sadly, I think that a constitutional amendment may be the only way this time.<br><br>As for the rest, I agree that they need to seal the border and stop the flood. If they don't do that, then all the rest is meaningless anyway.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-62150222265914004132010-08-04T13:38:48.304-04:002010-08-04T13:38:48.304-04:00JG, I laugh about that too. Rush has always been ...JG, I laugh about that too. Rush has always been great with parody and the things he's done have really stuck. Half the things I remember about Clinton still come from Rush. For example, every time I see Clinton I start hearing "can you blow you saxophone Billy boy..."<br><br>I don't think the Amendment will work because the Democrats currently see too much to be gained from keeping the borders porous. Once that changes, then I could see this passing -- or if their opposition really starts to hurt them at the polls. But until then, this is little more than a gimmick.<br><br>Still, everything has to start somewhere and maybe this is the beginning?AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-49866006458615708302010-08-04T12:37:21.949-04:002010-08-04T12:37:21.949-04:00Sorry, whenever I see his name all I can think of ...Sorry, whenever I see his name all I can think of are Rush Limbaugh's fake campaign commercials for Juan McCain. But yeah, I don't see such an amendment happening anytime soon, in this heated climate.JGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03116405895683599572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-17458692483325229612010-08-04T12:32:13.208-04:002010-08-04T12:32:13.208-04:00Andrew: I'm glad to see how many of our reader...Andrew: I'm glad to see how many of our readers (and you, of course) see through this ploy by McCain's "Mini-Me" Graham and amnesty RINOs. Amending the Constitution to limit birthright citizenship is a great idea that faces all the hurdles that the Founders intentionally built into the process. But anything's possible.<br><br>I would like to point out that I believe that Congressional legislation could solve the problem, but most likely won't. The part of the Fourteenth Amendment that is always quoted to protect birthright citizenship is well-known: "All persons born . . . in the United States . . . ." The part that is rarely quoted is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . ." And guess who determines who is subject to that jurisdiction. Yep, Congress. That jurisdiction could be rewritten legislatively to exclude the kind of "run across the border" birthright citizenship we've been suffering from for the past three or four decades. The legislation would also have to include wording that removes family fast-track "reunification" citizenship from the formula. My bet? They won't do it.<br><br>Alternatively, there is a third choice, and it's also one I can't see the cowards doing. Leave birthright citizenship in place, but amend immigration law so that those illegals who enter the US solely to drop an anchor baby are immediately deported in a summary proceeding. Take the baby or leave it, but you have to go. Heartless? Cruel? Yep. Practical solution? Yep. Sometimes you have to be draconian to accomplish the goal. And nobody in Congress would ever have the nerve to face the hearts and flowers violin section that would come into play over that kind of legislation.<br><br>My point? We'd better find a way to seal those borders, catch and deport illegals as quickly as possible, and eliminate the possibility of any further anchor-baby citizens. I'm not holding my breath, though.LawHawkRFDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-79392551077188134522010-08-04T12:21:59.778-04:002010-08-04T12:21:59.778-04:00LL, I agree entirely. The first step is to get a ...LL, I agree entirely. The first step is to get a control over the borders to stop the flood of people. Everything beyond that is just bailing water out of a sinking ship.<br><br>And you're right about the drugs. As long as they can be walked or driven across a porous border, we are just spinning our wheels.<br><br>I agree that this change would be a good long term strategy (and really should be done). . . but it's not something that I would consider a valid promise from a politician until it actually clears the Congress and heads to the states. And, like you, I suspect this is nothing more that something to garner votes.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-2058494998219651642010-08-04T12:18:20.024-04:002010-08-04T12:18:20.024-04:00DUQ, If there was a time that this would pass, rig...DUQ, If there was a time that this would pass, right now would be that time. But it's incredibly hard to amend the Constitution -- and rightly so.<br><br>You have to get 2/3 of the Congress which will be very hard with probably 90% of them being opposed -- even the "moderates" will find themselves pressured to stop this.<br><br>Secondly, you need 75% of the states to agree. That means 38 states. In other words, it only takes 13 states to stop this.<br><br>I suspect a strategy could be created to make this happen, but I don't know that they will do it right. I would suggest starting by framing the issue as anti-linejumping. Then push it in Congress with the idea that this is part of immigration reform (in other words promise the Democrats something in exchange for support and tell them that this probably won't happen anyway because the states will never allow it).<br><br>Then you need to hope for a massive wave of public support to push it through enough states.<br><br>(FYI, I would probably welch on the promise to the Democrats too. . . because they do that to us.)AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-86362581427773700462010-08-04T12:09:12.851-04:002010-08-04T12:09:12.851-04:00I saw the headline and I had such hope. I guess I...I saw the headline and I had such hope. I guess I should have been more skeptical. What do you think are the real odds this can pass?DUQnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-52872947880698182582010-08-04T11:25:10.819-04:002010-08-04T11:25:10.819-04:00The first thing to do is to stem the tide of illeg...The first thing to do is to stem the tide of illegal immigration (and by coincidence, MOST of the illegal drugs that come into the country) by hardening the border to authorized/legal crossing only.<br><br>A change to the 14th Amendment isn't a bad long term strategy, but as you said, it looks suspiciously like a move to garner votes and nothing else.<br><br>Sadly, closing the border is a function of the executive branch of government and barack hussein obama doesn't want to do that.LLhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05538854359365988863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-76610012926863949062010-08-04T11:14:22.444-04:002010-08-04T11:14:22.444-04:00I can't stand McCain and this isn't going ...I can't stand McCain and this isn't going to change my opinion of him! I don't care for Kyl either. I know he's rated as very conservatives, but everytime I look, he's trying to give the government more power.Ednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-48440164159763055422010-08-04T11:05:58.206-04:002010-08-04T11:05:58.206-04:00Writer X, "a bad boy band past their primes&q...Writer X, "a bad boy band past their primes"!! LOL!! That is the perfect description for them!AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-21618807073001933012010-08-04T11:03:15.250-04:002010-08-04T11:03:15.250-04:00Andrew, so true! And what a concept: McCain & ...Andrew, so true! And what a concept: McCain & Graham doing something meaningful? Right now they look like a bad boy band past its prime. It's gotten to the point where I can't even stand the sound of their voices.Writer Xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-79899101115168744382010-08-04T10:51:36.531-04:002010-08-04T10:51:36.531-04:00Stan, You can dream! :-)I would very much like to...Stan, You can dream! :-)<br><br>I would very much like to see this change. I think it's important that a country has the power to decide who it wants as citizens. Every other country in the world has this power and uses it regularly. But for some reason, we're not allowed?<br><br>I think this is an extreme long shot because of the numbers needed. BUT it's worth a shot. I just don't accept this as a legitimate plan by the like of McCain/Graham, nor would I see this as a legitimate campaign promise.<br><br>I can and do hope this passes, but in terms of attracting me as a voter, a "promise" to do this is meaningless.AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-53316532846188565752010-08-04T10:42:11.883-04:002010-08-04T10:42:11.883-04:00My dear departed grandmother used to have a saying...My dear departed grandmother used to have a saying when she heard bellyaching, “cain’t never done nothin,” …please excuse the southern colloquialism, my grandmother was very wise. We have an opportunity that may never happen again. The last change to the Constitution was the 27th amendment, ratified in 1971. It can be done and we should take the opportunity to roll back the power of the federal government, and that section of the 14th would be a good start. As far as McCain and that dip shit Gramnesty, pure political chicanery. <br><br>I know this draws much consternation but, what the hell, repeal the 16th and 17th amendment. You want to neuter the federal government remove their play toys. I can dream as well…ha!StanHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07395708786509590321noreply@blogger.com