To: .cnI redruM
If they just write a law without a Constitutional Amendment, I'd be so furious.
12 posted on
11/04/2005 6:02:44 AM PST by
Killborn
(Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
To: Killborn
That would be a cop out. They'd do it knowing full well Judge Roberts would get the hand grenade dropped in his lap six months hence.
14 posted on
11/04/2005 6:05:13 AM PST by
.cnI redruM
(Because change is not something you talk into existence.)
To: Killborn
If they just write a law without a Constitutional Amendment, I'd be so furious. It would be the pinnacle of hypocrisy. The right way to do it is to write an amendment, although I'm not sure what that amendment would say... you are only a citizen if your parents are citizens?? It would be a hard sell and would likely spend a lot of money and go down.
17 posted on
11/04/2005 6:07:33 AM PST by
rhombus
To: Killborn
The amendment has been misused for years. The wording is sufficient for the removal of our present day birthright citizenship.
And the original intent was not the way it is used today - anchor babies - it was to ensure former slaves were given citizenship.
Really, this amendment should have had an expiration clause, but the authors couldn't have for seen the mess we have today.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson