Posted on 08/06/2010 5:32:26 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
There are parts of Fox News I cannot watch. There is that self-important blowhard. There is that worldwide ambulance chaser. But as often as I can, I watch their news program at 6 p.m. My favorite part of that program is the lightning round, and especially the contributions of Charles Krauthammer.
Charles normally dissects an issue with precision and accuracy. But not today, the 5th of August. He posed the issue whether a Congressman was right to say we need to amend the 14th Amendment to deal with the problem of anchor babies. Krauthammer made the mistake of not reading the Amendment before discussing it. So did all the other participants in the discussion.
Krauthammer correctly stated that “we should not amend the Constitution to deal with such a small problem.” He missed the opportunity to point out that the Congressman, like much of the American press and punditry, are asking the wrong question and therefore getting the wrong answer.
Let’s read the document, and see where that leads. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….” Who gets to say who are “subject to the jurisdiction”?
Skip to the last sentence of the Amendment. It is a clause that appears in many of the Amendments. “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
There you have it, in the plain language of the Constitution itself. Congress can define by statute who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. It has long since done so with regard to children born to diplomatic personnel. A child born of Japanese diplomatic personal who is born in a D.C. hospital is Japanese at birth, not American. Why is that so? Because Congress wrote a law that says so.
Congress can solve the anchor baby problem immediately by a statute. It simply has to say that a child born of a Mexican citizen who has paid a coyote to get smuggled into the US, and risked death in the deserts of the Southwest to get to an Arizona hospital is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. It can further resolve the problem by ending all preferences for all known relatives of a prior anchor baby to come into the US.
Families don’t need to be “united” in the US. They will be just as united back in Mexico, or any other nation from which pregnant women engage in “citizenship tourism.”
Those who favor open borders, where anyone who can sneak into the US is entitled to all privileges of Americans, favor the anchor baby route to make this so. After all, it’s for the children. And they add, we shouldn’t mess with the Constitution.
But the Constitution is in no danger, and both mothers and babies will be in less danger, if Congress simply writes a law to deal with the problem. And the 14th Amendment gives Congress that very power.
Why would able reporters and even college professors write and say in the press that “the Constitution is in danger,” when it isn’t? These false sources are pretending that the Constitution is in danger to keep the people from realizing that statement is false, and the solution depends only on competent Members of Congress reading and following the Constitution.
Having watched and read Charles Krauthammer’s work for decades, I know he is not corrupt, distorting the Constitution to achieve a predetermined result. Instead, Charles just failed to do his homework. But still, he was dead wrong, and contributed to the public misunderstanding of this issue.
The truth is, as that obnoxious commercial says, “It’s so easy, even a caveman could do it.” Well, if a caveman can do it, so can a Congressman (or most of them can). Rewrite the law. Solve this problem, without spending a single dime on it. Now.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practiced before the Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya,yale.edu His latest book, to appear in September, is on Thomas Paine. www.TheseAreTheTimes.us
- 30 -
John / Billybob
I’m getting a Google Virus Warning when visiting your site. You may want to check it out.
Krauthammer practiced ready, fire, aim.
He is generally more on point than this, at least compared to most of the MSM. His handicaps may have given him an advantage over the “reporters” from the “three blind mice”, Commie News, PBS and MSNBC. And certainly better than the AP (Always Propaganda) writers.
Thanks for your perspective and good observations.
IMO the distinction is right there in the wording of the Amendment. Foreign citizens are ultimately subject to the jurisdiction of their native country. Thus the ability of a foreign nation to intervene with appeals on behalf of their citizens who run afoul of the law in the U.S. It is self-evident, or should be, that the newly born offspring of a foreign citizen is also subject to the jurisdiction of their parent's native country.
Lacking a court ruling to affirm that interpretation it can certainly be clarified with additional legislation but the distinction already exists in the 14th Amendment and the Executive Branch could simply assert that it is the policy, in accord with the 14th A., that children born here of foreign citizens are not U.S. citizens.
I got the virus warning too.
How do you read the 14th in light ofJUSTICE BRENNAN'S FOOTNOTE GAVE US ANCHOR BABIES
From Ann Coulter ?
If he is, indeed, as you describe him (and he appears to me), he should be aware of this.
As you, I believe many interpretations of the 14th Amendment are flawed...by a failure to recognize the final clause. Congress may certainly determine who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Especially since it was the court who previously stepped beyond their purview and determined who was "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Remember, he used to write for The New Republic and worked for Walter Mondale. I don't see why conservatives get so excited about him.
John / Billybob
Krauthammer also tried, last week, to tell us that the price of the Chevy Volt would be the $41,000 sticker price PLUS the $7500 tax credit. I know he majored in medicine not math, but errors like these will undermine his credibility.
Krauthammer STILL has failed to diagnose pres_ _ent Obama
because of his love for the undocumented,
probable Kenyan/Indonesian/Pakistani.
Krauthammer is thus non credible — even in his own field.
His nonsense about law and autmobiles show that he is
deluded, himself.
Sounds like a top agenda item for the new Republican congress. Here’s hopin that we have one and that they get the message.
Or is the legal word "jurisdiction" to be given diametrically opposite meanings depending on the particular context (criminal prosecution vs. citizenship)? Or are there multiple aspects of "jurisdiction that can be changed by statute for some purposes but not others?
I don't know the answer--just asking.
Technically he is right. You do the Math. 41K to Omamamotors +the $7500 from the tax payers, makes 48.5K.
BTW why is it not called a Hybrid since it has an engine? Because the taxpayer portion is higher for an electric.
Seems to me that the 14th Amendment is written to address a specific issue relative to citizenship. Thus, issues related to criminality are not touched upon here. It is internationally recognized that a person visiting another country is subject to being held accountable when they violate laws of that country.
Help Texas watch her borders.
Watch live on 14 cameras and report illegal alien invaders.
Night cams in operation
http://www.blueservo.net/index.php?error=nlg
Does it work? Yes.
Recently caught on cam and reported:
String of illegals running through brush with backpacks
Numerous sightings of boats crossing the river
Numerous vehicles late at night in isolated areas
IMMENSELY satisfying.
.
Skip to the last sentence of the Amendment. It is a clause that appears in many of the Amendments. “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
There you have it, in the plain language of the Constitution itself. Congress can define by statute who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Perhaps it's even more than "can," but in fact, "must."
Given that the 14th specifies not only birth, but ALSO being "subject to the jurisdiction" ("and") as requirements for US citizenship, I wonder if the lack of a specific jurisdictional law for the illegal Mexican problem actually PROHIBITS any inclusion into US citizenship.
Yeah, the anchor babies have the birth part. But where is the (apparently mandatory) declaration of subject jurisdiction in law? Is there a general jurisdiction law they are eligible for, or is such inclusion lacking? And if it IS lacking (or the general law is inadequate), isn't the jurisdictional specificity requirement of the 14th incomplete - and thus the complete US citizenship requirements unfulfilled, and therefore void?
My question is that when interpreting the 14th amendment, it is possible to give the legal term -- "jurisdiction"-- a different meaning than its "ordinary" meaning depending on the context? Or is the proper interpretation of the 14th amendment reference to "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" mean physical presence in the US when born? I have not read the cases such as Wong Kim Ark, etc., so I don't know the answer.
Got the same warning with Norton.
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.