-
Login
-
Digital Edition
-
Print Edition
- Most Commented
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Most Emailed
- Popular
- Popular
« News Home
An amendment is the way to go
TweetAn amendment is the way to go
The debate over our coun- try’s immigration policies is a heated one. Recently, some politicians on the right have suggested modifying/repealing the 14th amendment which automatically grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. The reaction to this suggestion by some on the left is insightful.
Left leaning politicians and publications have described this movement to amend the Constitution as un-American, radical, hateful, racist, and just about every other negative description one can think of. They seem shocked that anyone would dare to even raise the idea of repealing an amendment. The liberal reaction is even more confusing to me when I consider that these are the same people who believe that the U.S. Constitution is a “living, breathing” document, and if that is true, then the amendment process is the heart and lungs of the “living” Constitution. To classify anyone who wants to amend the Constitution as “radical,” you are in essence criticizing that person for following the Constitution, for the amendment process is the only constitutional means by which the Constitution can be changed.
When events cause us to consider our Constitution and our rights should we just rely on judicial activism from the left or the right? Should we just allow our elected leaders to ignore portions of the Constitution as the city of Chicago has done for the last 35 years with their handgun ban? Or, should we be rational, and follow the amendment process and change the Constitution using the method that the Framers intended, by the consent of the governed? For it is no simple task to amend the Constitution, requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses, and ratification by the states. In other words, changing the Constitution requires the consent of the governed, which it the exact reason we do not see many attempts, or even discussions regarding amending the Constitution. This brings us back to the immigration debate and the 14th amendment.
If the 14th or any amendment is to be repealed, it cannot be done by fiat, or on a whim of a select group of politicians or judges. It would take years and years of time, during which Americans would debate just exactly how they want to be governed. How is that “radical?”
George A. Davis, Poland
Comments
This is another effort to divide rather than heal the country.
The answer to reduce immigration has always been employer sanctions. Cut off the head and the body dies! After the Reagan 1986 amnesty, the government did bring a lot of cases against companies that go out of their way to avoid hiring US citizens. However, the George I administration decided to stop enforcement when it received protests from employers and pressure from groups like the US Chamber of Commerce. The Clinton and George UII administrations also did not enforce the law. This administration has started doing something about it. Recent efforts have reduced the numbers of illegals coming into the country.
Been to Atlantic City? Myrtle Beach? Virginia Beach? Where are the American workers? Where are the objections to hotels, golf courses, farms and industries briniging in Eastern Europeans to work in US resorts or in seasonal agriculture in the Eastern part of the US?
dito , dito
Well said Springman .You hit the nail on the head
Amending the Constitution is a big step. It's only been done 27 times in more than 230 years -- and never to limit rather than expand civil rights, with the exception of prohibition (and we all know how successful that was). Also, amending the Constitution when other means are available is radical. Immigration is serious issue, but repealing the 14th amendment would not solve the problem, and in fact, would create more problems. Children born to illegal immigrants are not the root of the problem (or even a significant issues despite being easy targets) and stripping them of their citizenship would not solve anything except create more illegal immigrants.
Ultimately, what those on the left find so radical about this proposal is that is it being promoted and embraced by Republicans, the party that steadfastly opposes Constitutional interference. The hypocrisy would be laughable if it weren't so serious. The party that defends the Second Amendment like it were the eleventh Commandant all of a sudden wants to play fast and loose with other amendments in order to appear to be taking a hard stance against immigration. That's what's radical -- and unconscionable.
There is no such thing as "fast and loose" when it comes to the amendment process. There is "fast and loose" when it comes to activist judges (on the left and right)
City Dweller,
Your statement: "never to limit rather than expand civil rights" demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant us rights, it limits the Governments' rights.
No argument there. But the Constitution has been used to prohibit the government from infringing on civil rights, i.e., ensuring all citizens can vote, protecting citizen from unlawful search and seizure, yes, granting citizenship to anyone born on American soil. Rarely has it given the government power to restrict rights, and when it has, the end result was a dismal failure.
And of course it's a long and laborious process to amend the constitution, but quite the opposite when it comes to proposing changes. Anyone can advocate for an amendment, and that's exactly what we're seeing right now. Members of the far right wing of the Republican party are calling for amendments to ban flag burning, define marriage, force prayer in school, ban abortion, and now to repeal the 14th amendment. It just seems ironic that the party that claims it's the voice for a hands-off government is leading the charge to amend they constitution every time the can't get a restrictive law to stick because it's unconstitutional.
Members of the GOP are taking what appears to be a bold, strong stand, because there is zero chance of it actually happening. Chances are, they will never have to vote on these amendments because they will never garner enough support to even make it to the floor. It's easy to "support" something that you know is never going to happen in order to appease single-issue voters, because you'll never have to put your money where your mouth is. It would be entirely different, I think, if these congress members actually had to vote on this.