Posted on 08/26/2015 9:35:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
When is it outrageous to amend the Constitution?
Donald Trump, the front-runner in the race for the Republican nomination, wants to overturn the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship. Whether out of panic or sincerity, a number of other Republican candidates have joined the bandwagon. This is probably good politics for the GOP nomination and almost certainly bad politics for the general election. I am inclined against the idea as a matter of public policy, because the costs would outweigh the benefits. But I am far from convinced it is something to be outraged about.
It's funny: On countless public policy issues, liberals are obsessed with comparing America to European countries. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders routinely points out that Europeans have far more lavish welfare policies, including various forms of government-provided health care. President Obama loves to point to the gun-control policies of other industrialized nations. "Why can't we just be more like (insert more left-wing European country)?" is the standard-issue rhetorical gimmick for cosmopolitan and sophisticated liberal policy wonks.
Except when it's not. No European country grants automatic citizenship to any person born on its soil. And yet, we are told that undoing this right would be a barbaric and retrograde reversal.
"It's pretty gross, and underlying are deeply seeded, basically racist intentions," Melissa Keaney of the National Immigration Law Center told Business Insider. Are Sweden and France "gross" now, too?
But let's get back to the Constitution. Whenever Republicans favor amending the Constitution -- or overruling a Supreme Court interpretation of it -- Democrats unleash a tsunami of mortified rhetoric.
"We should not mess with the Constitution. We should not tamper with the Constitution," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared in 2000 when Republicans suggested a victims' rights amendment.
"I respect the wisdom of the Founders to uphold the Constitution, which has served this nation so well for the last 223 years," Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) thundered in response to a proposed balanced-budget amendment in 2011.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) shrieked in protest over the potential repeal of birthright citizenship, "I think it's horribly dangerous to open up the Constitution, to tamper with the Constitution."
Now bear in mind, all of these Democrats oppose justices who believe the Constitution should be read narrowly, according to the original intent or plain meaning of the text. They like justices who worship at the altar of the "living Constitution" -- you know, the mythical document that magically provides rights never imagined by the Founding Fathers.
Meanwhile, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, announced that one of her four central goals is to change the First Amendment. She wants to do this on the grounds that we must do anything we can to get rid of "unaccountable money" in our political system.
Never mind that this is a funny position for a woman who plans on raising a reported $2 billion to win the presidency and whose foundation -- which is neatly aligned with her political ambitions -- is awash in foreign money. If only she hadn't scrubbed her illicit private email server, I'm sure she could allay any fears that she is tainted by unaccountable money.
And yet, where is the outrage?
It isn't coming from activist groups like People for the American Way, an organization founded to uphold the First Amendment. It has denounced the Republican effort to tinker with the 14th Amendment as an affront to human decency, but it applauds Clinton's desire to tamper with the First Amendment as proof of her commitment to democracy.
Some Republicans disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which applied the 14th Amendment to immigrants born here. Some Democrats disagree with the court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which says the First Amendment applies to groups of citizens acting in concert. Both, or neither, may be right, but only Republicans are forbidden from acting on their conviction.
Whenever a Republican is asked about potential court appointments, he must swear that he will offer no "litmus tests," specifically on abortion. But Democrats routinely vow that they will only appoint living constitutionalists who see a right to abortion on demand lurking between the lines of the Bill of Rights. Clinton recently added a new litmus test. She's told donors -- accountable ones, no doubt -- that she would only appoint justices who would overturn the Citizens United decision.
Don't strain yourself trying to hear the outrage. Outrage is saved for Republicans.
Earth to RINO Goldberg: There is no such constitutional guarantee, quite the contrary in fact. No amendment is necessary for the problem of "birthright citizenship" (which isn't).
Their is no such thing as a “Just Law” which promotes evil.
Justice is the Queen of Virtue and as Justice Marshall stated-—all Law ceases to be Law when it ceases to be Just.
Rewarding people for doing illegal acts is evil——as is welfare “laws” which promote theft and punishment for Work/productive lives and the Progressive tax (because it is unequal). We HAVE to get rid of evil (unjust) law. It is “null and void” anyhow. All justices who promote evil in laws (like sodomizing others), need to be removed and placed in prison.
All unjust laws are “Null and Void”——and we have to uphold Justice John Marshall’s words that ALL EVIL LAW is “null and void”-—the Father of Jurisprudence in America.
As Cicero stated——evil laws will collapse a culture.
The article says this; ‘...United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which applied the 14th Amendment to immigrants born here.’ which is only part of the story and not even the important part.
The parents of Mr. Ark were legal immigrants with established businesses over a period of years before Mr. Ark was born.
In other words to be as plain and unambiguous as possible; they were not illegal immigrants trying to get an anchor foothold for future good living on welfare for their entire clan.
Are there no actual reporters anymore? Are they all just opinioners?
I’ve been reading up on the 14th - another nod to The Donald for making me a more educated person. You are right - there is a clause within it that makes it quite obvious that to claim citizenship the baby’s parents must have ties within the United States and not from without. Slaves being the obvious example. Of course, what do liberal judges say?
Well, my memory is not a good as it once was ... apparently the parents were legally permanently domiciled here (San Francisco) but not immigrants. My fault. Sorry.
An excerpt from the syllabus of the case posted at Cornell University;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts agreed by the parties:
That the said Wong Kim Ark was born in the year 1873, at No. 751 Sacramento Street, in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, and [p651] that his mother and father were persons of Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China, and that said Wong Kim Ark was and is a laborer.
That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid.
That said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark continued to reside and remain in the United States until the year 1890, when they departed for China.
That during all the time of their said residence in the United States as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.
That ever since the birth of said Wong Kim Ark, at the time and place hereinbefore stated and stipulated, he has had but one residence, to-wit, a residence in said State of California, in the United States of America, and that he has never changed or lost said residence or gained or acquired another residence, and there resided claiming to be a citizen of the United States.
There were a few 19th century court cases that confirmed the original interpretation until US. v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the SCOTUS said that a child of a permanent resident was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" of which Chief Justice Fuller's dissent is a worthy read.
BTW, that case for the original interpretation is made here.
But a permanent resident is not the same as an anchor baby, of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.