Posted on 08/11/2010 7:20:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
It's like clockwork. Whenever conservatives propose a constitutional amendment, progressives suddenly rediscover the delicate gears of the Constitution and the horrible dangers of "tinkering" or "tampering" with its precision craftsmanship. Consider the sudden brouhaha over the idea of revising the 14th Amendment to get rid of automatic birthright citizenship (which would make us more like that alleged progressive nirvana known as "Europe," by the way). Here's Angela Kelley of the liberal Center for American Progress on Sen. Lindsey Graham, who started the amendment chatter: "He's not one to tamper with the Constitution, so I'm surprised he would even suggest this."
"While everyone recognizes that there are problems with our immigration system in this country," Elizabeth Wydra of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center tells NPR, "my perspective is: Let's try to fix this through legislation and not tinker with the genius of our constitutional design."
But wait a second. Progressives love to tinker with the constitutional design. They simply do it by stealth, by appointing Supreme Court justices such as Elena Kagan, who, her testimony notwithstanding, everyone knows will treat the Constitution like Felix the Cat's magic bag; when she searches the document hard enough you know she'll find what she's looking for.
But when conservatives who talk about reverence for the Constitution also want to update it in a way that is actually consistent with the "genius of our constitutional design," they are hypocrites and radicals.
Liberal devotees of the "living Constitution" always made a fair point. The Founding Fathers never envisioned a world with jet planes, split atoms, stem cell therapies, one-click porn or MTV's "Jersey Shore." Similarly, the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment would be stunned to learn, in July of 1868, that they had just created an adamantine right for homosexuals to marry one another and receive state benefits to boot, as a federal judge in California recently decided (overruling, I might add, the will of California voters).
Hence, liberals claim, we need an evolving Constitution that, as President Obama writes in "The Audacity of Hope," "is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." But as legal analyst Ed Whelan has noted, this "living document" argument is a straw man. Of course justices must read the document in the context of an ever-changing world. What else could they do? Ask plaintiffs to wear period garb, talk in 18th-century lingo and only bring cases involving paper money and runaway slaves?
The issue is not whether the world is ever-changing, but whether judges should treat the Constitution as ever-changing to meet their own agendas and desires, often over the lawfully expressed preferences of voters, legislators and the founders.
Still, if the Constitution is unclear or inadequate, what's a strict constructionist to do? Propose changes, and you're dubbed a hypocrite and a radical for wanting to "tinker with the genius of our constitutional design," or else you're guilty of hypocritical conservative judicial activism.
The relevant fact is that central to the genius of the Constitution's design are the mechanisms to change it. That process is arduous, requiring long and deliberate debates at the national and state levels. (In over two centuries, thousands of amendments have been proposed, 33 have been approved by Congress, and only 27 have been ratified by the states. That's not tinkering, that's craftsmanship.)
When discussing the Constitution on college campuses, students and even professors will object that without a "living constitution," blacks would still be slaves and women wouldn't be allowed to vote. Nonsense. Those indispensable changes to the Constitution came not from judges reading new rights into the document but from Americans lawfully amending it.
From birthright citizenship and gay marriage to flag-burning and gun rights, I trust the American people to change the Constitution when necessary (after lengthy debate) more than I trust five out of nine unelected justices with lifetime tenure, hiding behind closed doors and away from TV cameras.
What are the opponents of "tinkering" afraid of? I suspect sullying the genius of the founders takes a distant backseat to their real fear: losing a fair fight.
It’s purely hypocrisy for the left to now claim that the Constitution should not be tinkered with. But it seems a simple exercise in logic to determine that the level and effect of unfettered illegal immigration threatens the fabric of America. In such an extreme case, opening the debate about amending the 14th Amendment would seem the prudent thing to do. Nothing, however, will happen in DC until the next congress convenes.
Indeed it is, especially since they claim it is a living document and should be changed at will. especially if it’s in their favor
This statement is so ironic since the 14th Amendment was not part of the genius of the original design and actually was probably the biggest tinkering with the genius of the original design ever made.
Well of course the progressives want to use normal legislation to handle this. It buys them time and prevents them from having to oppose something incredibly popular in an election year. If they use the normal legislation to resolve this, the progressives are certain to filibuster, and even if the law passed, then Obama would veto the law...and even if he didn’t veto it SCOTUS would strike it down as unconstitutional. So 5 years are wasted through the whole process of going through the legislative process and courts...and in that time we have millions of more anchor babies. The progressives are globalists and they want to destroy American identity because it is a bulwark against their big government globalist citizens of the world agenda.
A constitutional amendment is about the only sustainable thing that will set the liberal agenda back. You are right. They want to buy time while subverting the legislative process.
Yet, even if the House and Senate muster the majorities to amend the 14th to prevent anchor babies, I am not confident that enough state will ratify it. Too many liberal legislatures out there. Please tell me I am wrong about the will of the states.
Neah. Hate to agree with liberals, but a Constitutional Amendment will probably hose things up.
We need a rational interpretation of the 14th Amendment that establishes that invading barbarians are not “...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” and, thus, neither they, or their children can be citizens of the US.
Ever.
We already have a interperation of the 14th.
Senator Howard ,chief writer of the 14th, “of ,course the right of citizenship does not extend to children of foreigners”
When did Howard come back to life and change his opinion ?
Apparently sometime in the late fifties or early sixties.
Amendments have become anachronisms. Why amend that which is ignored by members of all three branches?
Ping!
.
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.
Best time to catch them is at night.
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
.
On a fair plain, I agree with you. But otherwise...we lost...the liberals/progressives have won. Their push for amnesty, gay marriage, omnipotent government, you-name-it is inevitable. We, as conservatives, are in a rear gaurd action. I am talking about 5, 10, 20 50 years. They will dominate unless we can ratchet back the statists agenda. For crying out loud, I am optimistic! This election, the Libs will be set back, but look at how they shoved Obamacare through. The Repubs will gain the majority in Congress, but will they really offer genuine and conservative reform to health care? Border security? Balanced budgets? Etc.? Great they get all that but that only stops or delays th trend.
The trend of statists' achievement since FDR has been to gain more powers. Amendments to the constitution seem to be the proper check to the tyranny of ever growing government.
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.