[flashbunny]

I did read and comprehend it.

I just wondered why you continue to advocate an approach that bascially no other person has ever advocated - passing new amendments to re-state what is already in an amendment that has been ratified.

I have never seen anyone except you advocating such a postion.

BTW, if you want, here's more information on why you're wrong.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=2869

[kabar]

I just wondered why you continue to advocate an approach that bascially no other person has ever advocated - passing new amendments to re-state what is already in an amendment that has been ratified.

I am advocating that position because the 14th Amendment to the Constititution is very clear as to who is a citizen and we have over 100 years of legal precedent. The only way to overturn what is in the Constitution is through the amendment process. We have done it before. Remember prohibition.

BTW, if you want, here's more information on why you're wrong.

LOL. I read your link. I don't accept this Locke guy as an authority or his arguments, which were written in 2002. If you really want some authoritative information, I suggest you read the Hamdi Brief, which makes the same argument as Locke and the SCOTUS decision on the case, which did not address the citizenship issue. Hamdi is still an American citizen.