The Mucca Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 It's time to change law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 All this talk of repealing the 14th amendment is just a bunch of political rhetoric being tossed around by politicians to make it look like they are being tough on immigration. They know that repealing an amendment is harder to do than passing a regular law. An amendment to the Constitution must be ratified by a three/fourths vote in both houses. Like that's really going to happen. I hope these politicians have a better plan than that for tackling the immigration problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 If socks could get pregnant, then you would have 8% of the population... Thank you, I'm here all night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 If socks could get pregnant, then you would have 8% of the population... Thank you, I'm here all night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Republicans love the Constitution... until they don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 All this talk of repealing the 14th amendment is just a bunch of political rhetoric being tossed around by politicians to make it look like they are being tough on immigration. They know that repealing an amendment is harder to do than passing a regular law. An amendment to the Constitution must be ratified by a three/fourths vote in both houses. Like that's really going to happen. I hope these politicians have a better plan than that for tackling the immigration problem.Actually 2/3 vote in both houses, then 3/4 of all the states must approve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Republicans love the Constitution... until they don't. Hit the nail square on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 If socks could get pregnant, then you would have 8% of the population... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Republicans love the Constitution... until they don't. Funny how the Republicans are wanting to repeal an amendment that they passed post civil war... But seriously, the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was poorly written and allows for too much room for interpretation. The 14th amendment had its time and place and was enacted with good intentions. The scope of that amendment was to ensure that freed slaves would be given all the rights of American Citizenship. The supreme court has subsequently interpreted the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment to extend to all those that are born in the US, but there is some argument that this was not the intent of the author and framer of the citizenship clause. "During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." Now, I think you may also find that there is much to disagree about with many of the amendments to the US constitution. I am more of a strict constructionist with regard to the bill of rights but see the ability to have debate and possible repeal of many of the amendments that have been subsequently ratified. I think the majority of us can agree that the 18th amendment was ill conceived and many people take issue with the 16th, 17th, and 19th amendments. Post Bill of RIghts, the Constitution has become living documents that is a reactive document to societal "norms" or expectations at a given time. Thus, to go back and repeal or modify one of the Amendments after the Bill of Rights is something that is reasonable and in many cases necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Funny how the Republicans are wanting to repeal an amendment that they passed post civil war... But seriously, the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was poorly written and allows for too much room for interpretation. The 14th amendment had its time and place and was enacted with good intentions. The scope of that amendment was to ensure that freed slaves would be given all the rights of American Citizenship. The supreme court has subsequently interpreted the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment to extend to all those that are born in the US, but there is some argument that this was not the intent of the author and framer of the citizenship clause. "During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." Now, I think you may also find that there is much to disagree about with many of the amendments to the US constitution. I am more of a strict constructionist with regard to the bill of rights but see the ability to have debate and possible repeal of many of the amendments that have been subsequently ratified. I think the majority of us can agree that the 18th amendment was ill conceived and many people take issue with the 16th, 17th, and 19th amendments. Post Bill of RIghts, the Constitution has become living documents that is a reactive document to societal "norms" or expectations at a given time. Thus, to go back and repeal or modify one of the Amendments after the Bill of Rights is something that is reasonable and in many cases necessary. Excellently stated, though I am not sure I understand why you are a such a constructionist in regard to the Bill of Rights? For all the reasons you think cetain Amendments need tweaking (based on our current expectations), why would the Bill of Rights escape that same logical thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 What's up with this?? "Overall, Hispanics who live in the U.S. have higher rates of fertility than do whites, blacks or Asians," the report states. "And among Hispanics, the foreign born have higher rates of fertility than the native born." Is it the quesadillas?? Seriously, this is the first I've heard that they are actually more fertile. I thought they just screw a lot to make more wage earners. Chargerz, care to weigh in?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 http://whitewatch.files.wordpress.com/2009...rder-patrol.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 What's up with this?? Is it the quesadillas?? Seriously, this is the first I've heard that they are actually more fertile. I thought they just screw a lot to make more wage earners. Chargerz, care to weigh in?? its the spicy food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 (edited) Excellently stated, though I am not sure I understand why you are a such a constructionist in regard to the Bill of Rights? For all the reasons you think cetain Amendments need tweaking (based on our current expectations), why would the Bill of Rights escape that same logical thinking? My bias, I feel that there was quite a bit of thought that went into the Bill of rights and that the essence of what this country was established for is captured in the Bill of Rights. Subsequent amendments were established to correct a perceived flaw or to deal with an issue that didn't exist when the Constitution was written. Further, I feel that many of the subsequent amendments stemmed from "modern" partisan bickering and politics that weren't as prevalent during the creation of the bill of rights (I know I'm going to have to eventually explain that comment, but don't feel like it right now.) Thus, I think there is more thought and idealism, relating to how the founders thought the country should be established, in the bill of rights than exists in the amendments that followed and feel that these founding tenets should not be squelched. Edited August 12, 2010 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.