Reminds me of a very old joke involves a man being shown a set of inkblots, and interpreting them all as pictures of people having sex. When the tester announces that he's clearly obsessed with sex, he says, "Me? You're the one with the collection of dirty pictures.
You (JW) put words in his (DL) mouth and then interpret them to reveal your own biases.
He (JW) also has that cadence of a lefty.
Truth, truth, falsehood therefore all statements are true.
Obama like Ex.
The Constitution is the law of the land.
It should be adhered to.
Just like the Muslims who were so instrumental in it's construction would ask of us.
Obama and lefties are notorious for this. They use the truths to justify the falsehood.
and you suggest that the 14th Amendment was a BAD THING, what else am I SUPPOSED to think?
He did not suggest that. He said is was badly written and much abused.
I am suggesting that it is badly written and much abused. I would not be in favor of repealing it unless a substitute amendment or set of amendments (it really needs to be divided into more coherent and separate aspects) could be put forth to accomplish it's legitimate objectives.
George Will says the same thing.
An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html
A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.
To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.
A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."
Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.
If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is derived: "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:
Reminds me of a very old joke involves a man being shown a set of inkblots, and interpreting them all as pictures of people having sex. When the tester announces that he's clearly obsessed with sex, he says, "Me? You're the one with the collection of dirty pictures.
You (JW) put words in his (DL) mouth and then interpret them to reveal your own biases.
This is exactly my point. Conservatives have a lot of reasons to think the 14th amendment is badly written law, not the least of them is that it is used to create millions of "anchor babies" and "birth tourism". It also has been used to justify removing prayer from public schools, It created Abortion out of thin air, and were it not for misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, our current Occupier of the White House would likely not be there.
To a conservative, the first thing that comes to mind regarding any criticism of the 14th amendment is Abortion, Prayer in Schools, (Basically the Atheist/Communist assault on religion in our nation.) Illegal Immigration, and a whole host of other issues. There is NO ONE who is going to argue that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote! (They used to vote exclusively Republican.) You know who thinks of this stuff? Liberals. That's the first thing they think of when they are trying to criticize someone.
Rorschach test is exactly right. He sees "dirty pictures" because that's where his mind is.