McCain Faces Tough Questions About GOP Push To Repeal 14th Amendment

Can anyone else hear the crackling of McCain soul burning? And I don't mean that in a good way.

Hey, Senator Coburn... of course the Founders didn't endorse the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment wasn't part of the freakin' constitution! It was adopted in Eighteen Frickin' Sixty-Eight, when all the Founders were safely in their graves.

Or are you saying we should repeal ALL the post-Bill of Rights Amendments, because the Founders didn't intend them to be part of our system?

Geesh. I used to think Republicans were crazy for wanting to return us to pre-New Deal days. Now they want to take us back to 1789.

The GOP is out of control. I thought that they were supposed to be pro-Constitution, and that they were against liberal judges for 'interpreting' the Constitution. The language of the 14th Amendment does not require any interpretation - it clearly states "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." So now they are telling us that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is .... unconstitutional? Every GOP Senator and Congressman needs to explain their positions on this issue; they cannot be allowed to dodge it or plead some gray area. You either support the Constitution or you don't.

I love how suddenly the Reepublicans have begun talking about "reinterpreting" the intent of Constitutional amendments, in this case the 14th, after railing incessantly for decades about how we mustn't DARE to do anything of the sort when it comes to looking at the 2nd.

Of course John McCain will get away with this. regardless of whether he is right, wrong or insane, the beltway elite will protect him from any negative repercussions.

Note to Coburn: Look up United States v Wong Kim Ark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Who was McCain talking to when he said: "You're changing the constitution of the United States...I support the concept of holding hearings."

The reporter? The reporter is changing the Constitution?
I'm assuming this is supposed to be an attack on the 'librul' news media.

I'm scratching my head why Josh used this on the front page:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/08/birtherism_writ_large.php

Obama is the son of a U.S. Citizen (his mother) born on U.S. Soil (Hawaii).

Are birthers now trying to claim his mother really isn't his Mom, or that his Mom *also* isn't a U.S. citizen somehow?

The current 14th Amendment really has little to do with birtherism written large. It's very much the other things RW touches on: White America afraid of no longer being the majority. Which has it's subset: White American Males fear of Losing Control.

Really in the end the last one it's what's driving much of this, though more in the sense of being tapped into. What in really drives it is the Oligarchy running the country, and they just wisely see race as something they can use to get the masses going, much like using Tax Cuts as Opium To The Masses even when the tax cuts actually benefit the Oligarchy while the true tax costs and cuts to entitlement programs hurt the masses.

John

I find this push against birthright citizenship as shameful as the rest of you, but can we have a reasonable debate on the merits? First of all, Sen. Coburn is *not* invoking the framer's intent to invalidate birthright citizenship - he's not saying that children of undocumented residents aren't citizens - he's saying we should amend the Constitution so that they won't be going forward. The position these folks are advancing is perfectly reasonable and logically consistent - they believe that only the children of "legal" residents and citizens should be granted citizenship. The argument we should be making is not that their suggestion is insane or racist - even if it is. We should be demonstrating that birthright citizenship is a superior policy to the alternative.

Think of what this revised conception of citizenship implies: if the children of undocumented residents are not citizens, what is their status? Will pregnant women be required to carry proof of citizenship wherever they go? Need both parents be citizens in order for their child to be a citizen? Will paternity need to be verified at birth in order to award citizenship? Etc.

These folks do lots of crazy shit; let's reserve our outrage for those occasions. This is actually the way that Congress is supposed to work - the minority disagree with part of the Constitution (in an absurd, radical way) and now are seeking to amend it. Let's attack this policy on it's merits - that's an easy fight to win.

And if we're worried about politics... I think the 14th Amendment probably polls pretty well.

I think the Republicans should get back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Get back to the 3/5 counting, and eliminate that pesky 13th and 14th Amendment. After all, slavery shouldn't have been eliminated. It was not in the original Constitution. Might as well go after the 19th Amendment also. No telling how many Democratic votes those nasty Amendments have cost Republicans.

The original intent needs to be that white males are in charge of everything. Republicans would be comfortable with that. Besides, if they offend Alan Keyes, that is only one vote lost anyway.

Run, Johnny, run! Before you throw what little is left of your integrity into the ideological toilet.

When viewed in the context of the range of positions that he has taken in his career as a result of pure political expediency, taken together with his nauseating injection of Palin into national politics, McCain might be the most despicable politician ever.

Arizona Republicans Seek To Tear Down Statue of Liberty.

Sean Thibodeau

http://suspiciouspackaging.blogspot.com/2010/08/arizona-republicans-seek-to-tear-down.html

In a shocking move (well from Arizona these days, maybe not so shocking), the same Arizona Republicans that want to further enslave Mexicans and deny person born on United States soil (despite this being the law of the United States for 150 years) have asked that the Statue of Liberty be torn down. Announcing that they detest the pagan symbol of a Roman goddess and detest freedom, the Arizonians want to have a "pure" race so we need to rid the US of unwanteds.

The present interpretation of the 14th is not what the framers intended. Some radical re-intpretation has now come into vogue.
"The ratification of the 13th Amendment was a major victory for the North, and it was hoped that with the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, the effects of slavery in the United States would quickly diminish. The original plan to readmit states after acceptance of the 13th was supported by President Andrew Johnson, but the Radical Republicans, as they became known, wanted more than just a return to normalcy. They wanted to keep the power they had attained during the war years. The South did not make it easy for Johnson, however, and the so-called Black Codes started to be passed in Southern states. Congressional inquiries into the Black Codes found them to be a new way of controlling ex-slaves, fraught with violence and cruelty.

The ensuing Reconstruction Acts placed the former CSA states under military rule, and prohibited their congressmen's readmittance to Congress until after several steps had been taken, including the approval of the 14th Amendment. The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868 (757 days)."
As will be seen below, Native Americans, born on land under the jurisdiction of the United States were not included in the 14th amendment in its original interpretation.
"The Act granted citizenship to about 125,000 of 300,000 indigenous people in the United States (Those indigenous people that were not included in citizenship numbers had already become citizens by other means; entering the armed forces, giving up tribal affiliations, and assimilating into mainstream American life were ways this was done (Peterson 121). Citizenship was granted in a piecemeal fashion before the Act, which was the first more inclusive method of granting Native American citizenship. The Act did not include citizens born before the effective date of the 1924 act, or outside of the United States as an indigenous person, however, and it wasn’t until the Nationality Act of 1940 that all born on U.S. soil were citizens (Haas 16, Haney 29)." And that "All" did not include Illegal persons that across our nations borders unlawfully in the middle of the night. There children should by right be nationals of the nation their parents are legal citizens of.

People need to put the 14th Amendment into its proper context, the circumstances, and the times, after the Civil War. It did not apply to illegal aliens who crossed our boarders without visas or green cards. Society has changed, means of transportation has changed, movement of peoples has changed, and our entire Nation's character and racial makeup is changing, in part because of illegal immigration. Keep the 14th Amendment, just amend it to require that it applies only to children born of parents who are in the US legally, period. And while they are at it, enforce our boarders, prosecute companies who intentionally hire illegals, Why are we the only country in the world which does not enforce its immigration laws. Try that in Russia, France, England, Iran, Mexico, and see where you end up.