[jazusamo]

Nappy and Gibby are quite a pair, working hard for the illegal vote.

[Man50D]

You know it’s right when she says it’s wrong.

[Andrea19]

Republicans oppose judges “tinkering” with the Constitution. Amendments done through the proper ratification process are the correct way to change something in the Constitution.

[Man50D]

“This is in the hands of the Congress, and they will need to address it in a bipartisan way,” Napolitano said.

Why does it need to be bipartisan? Your fellow commies have the overwhelming majority!

[Niteranger68]

Then women shouldn't vote.

[Vaquero]

talk is wrong???

so the 1st amendment is wrong..... right????

confusing aren't they.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Actually she's right, Congress can take care of this through legislation or clarification.

The last part of the 14th reads:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[pgkdan]

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted Republicans for suggesting a closer examination and possible change to the equal protection amendment, noting the irony of a party dedicated to strict constructionists talking about tinkering with the Constitution.

Only a moron would attempt to make this point. The 14th Amendment is an AMENDMENT! It's not part of the originial construction that strict constuctionists try so damned hard to defend! How did this idiot ever get a job? Even for a rat like obama, I'd expect a more intelligent...evil and diabolical perhaps....man for the job. Gibbs is just as dumb as a sack of hammers.

[ZULU]

Yeah. She and her pupeteer like it the way it is - they just ignore it anyway.

[NavVet]

Until 1982 no one had distorted the 14th Amendment to give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

[KarlInOhio]

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted Republicans for suggesting a closer examination and possible change to the equal protection amendment, noting the irony of a party dedicated to strict constructionists talking about tinkering with the Constitution.

“It's rich in its irony; it's wrong in its approach,” Gibbs said.

What's so wrong with it? The Constitution has a flaw (or else the current courts' interpretation has a flaw which the courts will not allow to be fixed legislatively), thus we want to change the Constitution. That is what strict contructionists say you should do. Just like when there was no constitutional authority to outlaw alcohol and the people wanted it done, then the 18th amendment was passed. When that was seen to be a mistake, it was removed.

On top of the 14th's current interpretation of birth right citizenship, I would like to redo the interstate commerce clause, the constitutional supremecy of treaties and on those days when I'm not thinking of how corrupt Blagojevich was in selling a Senate seat I would like to repeal the 17th amendment.

[antiRepublicrat]

noting the irony of a party dedicated to strict constructionists talking about tinkering with the Constitution.

Where's the irony? I don't see it. It is the strict constructionist view to desire change through the constitutional amendment process rather than judicial fiat.

[roaddog727]

“....prevent the natural born children of illegal immigrants from obtaining citizenship.”

They can not be Natural born citizens as their PARENTS are not US CITIZENS.

Yet again weasel wording arguments!

[chris37]

If Janet Lesbitano is against it, then I’m for it.

[astyanax]

"White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted Republicans for suggesting a closer examination and possible change to the equal protection amendment, noting the irony of a party dedicated to strict constructionists talking about tinkering with the Constitution. "
Moron. It's not the intent that is the problem. That is quite clear:
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
The problem is with the (recent) interpretation of it.

[Cheerio]

Crappy Nappy, aka Big Sis, is just plain wrong and needs to be removed from her post. She took an oath to uphold the laws of the USA and the Constitution. Crappy is doing neither. Crappy had every bit as much to do with the lawsuit against AZ as Eric Holder had - they both march to the same drummer. IMPEACH. Show us your spine GOP. Run on a platform of CHANGING back our Government to WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT,, not what the Marxists that hijacked the RAT party want.

[dadgum]

Who pulled her string?

As if we could give a sh*t about her opinion on that matter, or any other.

[alecqss]

... unlike ignoring the constitution.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

They keep talking about amending the Constitution but that’s a smokescreen. It doesn’t need to be changed, Congress is within their rights to end anchor baby abuse legislatively and all the “opponents” know it, including Harry Reid and Napolitano.

[equalitybeforethelaw]

Yea, but it seems reasonable to overturn the CA Constitution any time you want. Go figure?

[IronJack]

Any law eliminating anchor babies would immediately be struck down as a violation of the 14th Amendment. The only way to prevent the phenomenon is by amending the Constitution.

The same applies to the Definition of Marriage. Without a constitutional amendment, we’re at the mercy of activist courts.