Posted on 08/03/2010 8:17:59 AM PDT by lbryce
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told The Hill on Monday that Congress “ought to take a look at” changing the 14th Amendment, which gives the children of illegal immigrants a right to U.S. citizenship.
McConnell’s statement signals growing support within the GOP for the controversial idea, which has also recently been touted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
In an interview, McConnell said the 14th Amendment provision should be reconsidered in light of the country’s immigration problem.
McConnell stopped short of echoing Graham’s call for repeal of the amendment.
“I think we ought to take a look at it — hold hearings, listen to the experts on it,” McConnell said. “I haven’t made a final decision about it, but that’s something that we clearly need to look at. Regardless of how you feel about the various aspects of immigration reform, I don’t think anybody thinks that’s something they’re comfortable with.”
During an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Kyl said, “There is a constitutional provision in the 14th Amendment that has been interpreted to provide that, if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what. … And so the question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?”
Kyl added that he suggested to Graham that “we should hold some hearings and hear first from the constitutional experts to at least tell us what the state of the law on that proposition is.”
It is unclear when such hearings would occur. Democrats, who control the Senate, set the chamber’s hearing schedule.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Russell Pearce has the right idea as usual. Although he has all the subtlety of a bull in a china shop, Pearce’s direct approach is correct: pass it and let the 5-4 SCOTUS decide. On SB1070, he said he “wrote it to win 5-4 in the Supreme Court”. And he is about to push anti-birthright citizenship legislation as well. The SCOTUS has NEVER definitively ruled on this, only on the offspring of LEGAL Chinese immigrants at the turn of the 20th Century. This is the way to go. There is lots of commentary and notes by the drafters of this amendment to show that the intent was to do the opposite of what has been interpreted.
Typical RINO ruse. The 14th says no such thing.
They just need to revisit the Federal Government’s W[r]ong interpretation of the 14th Amendment in that regard.
The man who co wrote the 14th amendment was clear that it did not apply to the children of aliens to the United States. His writings were not taken into consideration when the SCOTUS ruled on the case of a Chinese man who’s parents were deported in the late 19th century.
When you look back at the track record of the GoP leadership the last few years, one can only wonder what could have been..
-anwr could be a producing oil field(but Norm Coleman said No, he was the 60th cloture vote to enact energy legislation that could have made a difference to all of us.
-nuke plants could actually be under construction.
-all the wasted money on renewable energy could have been used to actually foster growth and not stifle it and chase pie in the sky.
But, we would have needed some leaders with ‘cojones’, huh?
I used to think Mitch had ‘it’... and got ‘it’.
No longer.
Any gains in either the House and Senate should also result in new blood and new leadership and not a return to mugwumpian politics and a repeat squandering of power.
You've got some Constitution confusion. This is what Article V says...
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
The Congress doesn't call a Convention, the State Legislatures do - specifically when 2/3rds of the states call for a Convention.
Amending the Constitution is - by design - extremely difficult to do. That is why after the adoption of the Constitution during the first Constitutional Convention, it has only been amended 17 times.
However realistically when you have liberal activists like Kagan on the USSC who flatly state that precedent overrules original intent then a constitutional amendment may be the only hope.
Oh, you made my day. What a wonderful idea! Thanks. It’s just nice to think about. Like knowing the Marines are just down the corner.
Exactly and it's in the congressional record for anyone in Congress now who cares to look.
Hey we're all for doing the right thing here, but ya gotta understand, our hands are tied, man.
In reading statutes or contracts, "and" is conjunctive. Its clear language means that you must both be born or naturalize, and must be subject to its jurisdiction.
It is quite plain and there is no wiggle room.
Assuming of course you can get 5 Supreme Court Justices to agree with you. With Kennedy on the court, that may not be likely. I can't think of a single immigration/citizenship case in the last 20 years where Kennedy has joined (in entirety) with the plainly conservative side of the Court.
Roberts & Alito (especially Alito) were both challenged on this issue during confirmation hearings. Schummer really pressed Alito, but Alito admirably parried Schummer's attack. My sense from the hearing was that Alito was open to revisiting the 14th, and narrowing or clarifying the decision in Ark.
Roberts has been entirely silent on the subject. I can't find any public comments or legal writings from Roberts on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". As I recall, he was pressed extensively on Plyler v. Doe, but he stuck to his statement that it was a subject he hadn't even thought about since law school. Since he didn't use the "settled law" phrase, I think he's likely to be open to limiting the application of the 14th.
Thomas and Scalia would seem likely to limit "jurisdiction" in this case. Kennedy, as usual, is the problem.
Chief Justice Fuller's dissent on that case was a legal thing of beauty.
It was also prescient. He knew exactly what the practical effect of the majority opinion would have - that everyone would be eligible for citizenship if they weren't born to foreign armies or foreign diplomats. In criticizing the majority opinion, he says this...
"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
Fuller sees clearly the problems with the Ark opinion moving forward.
If Congress drafts legislation to amend the Constitution, that legislation will be voted on in the legislature and then sent to the states for ratification. I wasn’t completely off, just missing a few steps. The states can call a Constitutional Convention on their own, but if Congress drafts legislation intended to amend the Constitution, the States have to call a Convention.
Correct me if I’m wrong on any of these points, but I believe this is how I understood it in my Constitutional history class.
Good luck amending the 14th....Not with the Dems and Liberal RINO GOP voting to change it.
Do you think a Liberal RINO like Mitch McConnell will change the 14th Amen.?
All that needs to be done to stop anchor babies is to give the mother of the illegal kid a choice: A. Kid stays and you and your family return to Mexico. or B. The kid goes with you and the family back to Mexico.
The kid has birthright....not the parents. Deport the parents and the rest of the family. You will stop the anchor baby nonsense
Ping!
If 2/3rds of Congress (in both houses - which is 67 in the Senate, and 290ish in the House) propose a new Amendment, that proposed Amendment can be ratified in one of two ways. First, 3/4ths of the respective State Legislatures may vote for adoption - how that process works, is dependent on the rules in each respective State Legislature. I think most are simple majority, but I'm not positive.
Second, a ratifying convention may be called. This has only been done once, for the 21st Amendment which repealed the 18th Amendment (prohibition). The rest of the Amendments were passed using 3/4ths of the State Legislatures.
"I wasn’t completely off, just missing a few steps. The states can call a Constitutional Convention on their own, but if Congress drafts legislation intended to amend the Constitution, the States have to call a Convention."
Not "have to" - may call a ratification convention. Or, they can simply vote to ratify it as individual legislatures, if they can get 3/4ths of themselves to vote as such.
Lastly, the other way to do this is for the states - 3/4ths of the states - to call for a Constitutional Convention. This, of course, has never been done except for the first Constitutional Convention.
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.