Independent Discussion Guidelines
And for our readers for whom the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution may not immediately spring to mind, here is the first part:
Amendment XIVSection 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.- [snip; four more sections follow] -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/co...
webadmin (webadmin)August 19, 2010 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Webadmin: I clicked on the link you provided and it lead to a page that said the link was broken.
billclausen (anonymous profile)August 21, 2010 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Works from our end; it's on findlaw.com, as well as a number of other sources.
webadmin (webadmin)August 21, 2010 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Could have been a temporary glitch.
billclausen (anonymous profile)August 22, 2010 at 3:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There was an interesting discussion on the history of the 14th amendment on NPR radio a few weeks ago:
According to Harvard professor Randall Kennedy, in 1868, there was specific debate in Congress about the status of children born to certain groups who could not legally be citizens ... blacks and immigrant workers from China.
So the legal inference is that the original intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment is inclusive of the current context.
From a practical viewpoint, I think its easy to see why Republican leaders want the 14th repealed - families of Hispanic immigrants often don't vote Republican. Plus its a hot-button topic for many of the Republican and Tea Party faithful likely to bring out voters. Easy peesy.
Immigrants have always been targets when economic conditions sour. This was true when the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882 and its true today.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)August 22, 2010 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't mess with the Constitution, regardless.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)August 22, 2010 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The 14th Amendment rewards people for illegal behavior and should be changed for today's realities. Remember, all you leftists, that the Constitution is a living document.
jukin (anonymous profile)August 23, 2010 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The vote is telling... when I see that we get 67% in favor of this change across the country, then I would share my opposition. It is clear to me that it is yet another smoke screen for the political misdirection on this election year. It reminds me of the "flag-burning" issue that distracts us from the real discourse that we should engage in... add the "NY Mosque" charade being served by people that claim to love the constitution..... really what religion should the State sponsor?????
historystudent (anonymous profile)August 23, 2010 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
historystudent is correct.
We should be talking about deficit spending $5,000,000,000.00 each and everyday under Obama.
We should talk about unemployment at a real 19.6% after borrowing a trillion dollars.
We should talk about the loss of over 8,000,000 jobs since Obama has been president.
We should talk about how under Pelosi the federal government had grown 38% in her first three years.
We should talk about that I can only give you the first three years because the democrat congress DID NOT PASS A BUDGET for this FY.
Lots to talk about and the democrats pushing the mosque at ground zero issue only distracts us from their utter failure of governing in the last four years.
jukin (anonymous profile)August 26, 2010 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jukin...you are right on target. Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)September 8, 2010 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)