Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Napolitano: 'Any talk of amending the constitution is just wrong'
The Hill ^ | August 13, 2010 | Sam Youngman

Posted on 08/13/2010 10:51:30 AM PDT by jazusamo

Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano on Friday rejected Republican calls to amend the Constitution to prevent children of illegal immigrants from gaining citizenship.

“Any talk of amending the Constitution is just wrong,” Napolitano said in comments at the daily White House press briefing.

Some Republicans have suggested the 14th Amendment should be changed to prevent the natural born children of illegal immigrants from obtaining citizenship. The amendment was approved after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for freed slaves, especially in the South.

Critics argue that illegal immigrants come to the U.S. for the express purpose of winning citizenship for babies born in the U.S.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted Republicans for suggesting a closer examination and possible change to the equal protection amendment, noting the irony of a party dedicated to strict constructionists talking about tinkering with the Constitution.

“It's rich in its irony; it's wrong in its approach,” Gibbs said.

Napolitano also hit the GOP for not joining the Obama administration in calling for comprehensive immigration reform, which would include a pathway to citizenship for the country’s illegal immigrants.

Napolitano is the former governor of Arizona, the frontline in today’s immigration debate. The federal government successfully sued Arizona over its controversial immigration law, which would give new powers to local police to crack down on illegal immigrants.

The Homeland Security secretary boasted that the $600 million bill President Obama signed Friday for border security is a step in the right direction, but comprehensive reform will only be possible when “Republicans finally” come to the table.

“It needs to happen,” she said.

Gibbs added: "With a little leadership, we could have comprehensive immigration reform."

While she acknowledged that the sluggish U.S. economy was partially responsible for the decrease in illegal border crossings, Napolitano said Obama's efforts have also helped to stop the flow of illegal immigration.

“These efforts are making a difference,” she said.

But Napolitano said a schedule for passing comprehensive reform is out of Obama's hands.

“This is in the hands of the Congress, and they will need to address it in a bipartisan way,” Napolitano said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; aliens; anchorbabies; illegals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
Nappy and Gibby are quite a pair, working hard for the illegal vote.
1 posted on 08/13/2010 10:51:33 AM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

You know it’s right when she says it’s wrong.


2 posted on 08/13/2010 10:52:51 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Republicans oppose judges “tinkering” with the Constitution. Amendments done through the proper ratification process are the correct way to change something in the Constitution.


3 posted on 08/13/2010 10:53:16 AM PDT by Andrea19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
“This is in the hands of the Congress, and they will need to address it in a bipartisan way,” Napolitano said.

Why does it need to be bipartisan? Your fellow commies have the overwhelming majority!
4 posted on 08/13/2010 10:55:20 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Then women shouldn't vote.
5 posted on 08/13/2010 10:55:23 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (I believe in man-made political climate change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
talk is wrong???

so the 1st amendment is wrong..... right????

confusing aren't they.

6 posted on 08/13/2010 10:55:55 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Actually she's right, Congress can take care of this through legislation or clarification.

The last part of the 14th reads:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

7 posted on 08/13/2010 10:56:51 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (People I know have papers for their mongrels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted Republicans for suggesting a closer examination and possible change to the equal protection amendment, noting the irony of a party dedicated to strict constructionists talking about tinkering with the Constitution.

Only a moron would attempt to make this point. The 14th Amendment is an AMENDMENT! It's not part of the originial construction that strict constuctionists try so damned hard to defend! How did this idiot ever get a job? Even for a rat like obama, I'd expect a more intelligent...evil and diabolical perhaps....man for the job. Gibbs is just as dumb as a sack of hammers.

8 posted on 08/13/2010 10:57:12 AM PDT by pgkdan (When the same man...holds the sword and the purse, there is an end of liberty: George Mason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Yeah. She and her pupeteer like it the way it is - they just ignore it anyway.


9 posted on 08/13/2010 10:58:19 AM PDT by ZULU (God, guts and guns made America great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrea19; Niteranger68

Exactly! There’s nothing “wrong” with amending the Constituion as long as the legal process is followed.


10 posted on 08/13/2010 10:58:26 AM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Until 1982 no one had distorted the 14th Amendment to give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.


11 posted on 08/13/2010 11:00:02 AM PDT by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

You’re correct but it’s not clear that that is what she’s talking about.


12 posted on 08/13/2010 11:02:35 AM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted Republicans for suggesting a closer examination and possible change to the equal protection amendment, noting the irony of a party dedicated to strict constructionists talking about tinkering with the Constitution.

“It's rich in its irony; it's wrong in its approach,” Gibbs said.

What's so wrong with it? The Constitution has a flaw (or else the current courts' interpretation has a flaw which the courts will not allow to be fixed legislatively), thus we want to change the Constitution. That is what strict contructionists say you should do. Just like when there was no constitutional authority to outlaw alcohol and the people wanted it done, then the 18th amendment was passed. When that was seen to be a mistake, it was removed.

On top of the 14th's current interpretation of birth right citizenship, I would like to redo the interstate commerce clause, the constitutional supremecy of treaties and on those days when I'm not thinking of how corrupt Blagojevich was in selling a Senate seat I would like to repeal the 17th amendment.

13 posted on 08/13/2010 11:02:54 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Gun control was originally to protect Klansmen from their victims. The basic reason hasn't changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
noting the irony of a party dedicated to strict constructionists talking about tinkering with the Constitution.

Where's the irony? I don't see it. It is the strict constructionist view to desire change through the constitutional amendment process rather than judicial fiat.

14 posted on 08/13/2010 11:03:20 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrea19
It is activist judges that are tinkering with the Constitution. It is an Executive Branch refusing to enforce the law that is tinkering with the Constitution. It is a Congress that ignores the Constitution that is tinkering with the Constitution.

Can anyone spell "1984"?????????????

15 posted on 08/13/2010 11:05:02 AM PDT by LiteKeeper ("It's the peoples' seat!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

There was an interesting article posted awhile back, it pointed out that the children of diplomats born here are not US citizens.


16 posted on 08/13/2010 11:05:43 AM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Yer right, I should have added she is right even though she doesn't know what she's talking about! LOL
17 posted on 08/13/2010 11:06:40 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (People I know have papers for their mongrels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

“....prevent the natural born children of illegal immigrants from obtaining citizenship.”

They can not be Natural born citizens as their PARENTS are not US CITIZENS.

Yet again weasel wording arguments!


18 posted on 08/13/2010 11:08:45 AM PDT by roaddog727 (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

If Janet Lesbitano is against it, then I’m for it.


19 posted on 08/13/2010 11:09:41 AM PDT by chris37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
"White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted Republicans for suggesting a closer examination and possible change to the equal protection amendment, noting the irony of a party dedicated to strict constructionists talking about tinkering with the Constitution. "
Moron. It's not the intent that is the problem. That is quite clear:
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
The problem is with the (recent) interpretation of it.
20 posted on 08/13/2010 11:11:51 AM PDT by astyanax (Liberalism: Logic's retarded cousin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Crappy Nappy, aka Big Sis, is just plain wrong and needs to be removed from her post. She took an oath to uphold the laws of the USA and the Constitution. Crappy is doing neither. Crappy had every bit as much to do with the lawsuit against AZ as Eric Holder had - they both march to the same drummer. IMPEACH. Show us your spine GOP. Run on a platform of CHANGING back our Government to WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT,, not what the Marxists that hijacked the RAT party want.
21 posted on 08/13/2010 11:14:44 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Who pulled her string?

As if we could give a sh*t about her opinion on that matter, or any other.


22 posted on 08/13/2010 11:16:23 AM PDT by dadgum (Overjoyed to be a Pariah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

... unlike ignoring the constitution.


23 posted on 08/13/2010 11:16:36 AM PDT by alecqss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

They keep talking about amending the Constitution but that’s a smokescreen. It doesn’t need to be changed, Congress is within their rights to end anchor baby abuse legislatively and all the “opponents” know it, including Harry Reid and Napolitano.


24 posted on 08/13/2010 11:19:00 AM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
-- it pointed out that the children of diplomats born here are not US citizens. --

The legal fiction is that diplomat remains domiciled in his home country, even if he stays in this country for years at a go.

Children of transient visitors (non resident visa, and via waiver situations; not just illegals) should likewise obtain the citizenship of their parents' domicile. This is what "subject to the jurisdiction" meant when it was passed. As interpreted (incorrectly), the words are surplussage. Meaning that even if "subject to the jurisdiction" was removed from the 14th amendment, children of diplomats would still be citizens of the their home country - ergo, those words aren't in the 14th amendment to protect the citizenship of the diplomat's kids.

25 posted on 08/13/2010 11:22:25 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
“and on those days when I'm not thinking of how corrupt Blagojevich was in selling a Senate seat I would like to repeal the 17th amendment.”

LOL!

“This F-ing plum falls in my F-ing lap; and I'm supposed to F-ing give it away? No F-ing way!” Gov Blagojevich on his duty to find a new Senator for the people of Illinois.

Yes, absent the direct election of Senators, smoky backroom deals would be the norm. A whole lot of ‘you scratch my back, i scratch yours’, etc.

26 posted on 08/13/2010 11:23:46 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
-- They keep talking about amending the Constitution but that's a smokescreen. --

Aye, a deliberate one. The intent is to make it "too hard" to change, so that the people are misled to think that the country must, as a matter of "the way things are and should be," admit to citizenship every person born on this soil, regardless.

If Congress out and admitted it could do this by legislation, the outcry would be "where have you boneheads been for the last 30 years?"

Another favorite diversion is to assign the decision either to a court, or to a regulatory agency. See too, assigning monetary policy to the Federal Reserve.

27 posted on 08/13/2010 11:26:32 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Yea, but it seems reasonable to overturn the CA Constitution any time you want. Go figure?


28 posted on 08/13/2010 11:29:12 AM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Any law eliminating anchor babies would immediately be struck down as a violation of the 14th Amendment. The only way to prevent the phenomenon is by amending the Constitution.

The same applies to the Definition of Marriage. Without a constitutional amendment, we’re at the mercy of activist courts.


29 posted on 08/13/2010 11:30:49 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
“Any talk of amending the Constitution is just wrong,” Napolitano said in comments at the daily White House press briefing.

Uh, Janet, you dumbass, the Constitution outlines the process for amending the Constitution.

Since the founding fathers anticipated the possible need for changes they put that in.

You may not agree with the talk, but it's not wrong.

Article 5 - Amendment

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.

How can these people, charged with the responsibility of administering the fed government, possibly function without an understanding of the document that allows them to exist as functionaries?

I want all government functionaries to pass a test before they can be sworn in and allowed to serve.

30 posted on 08/13/2010 11:30:57 AM PDT by and so? (If it angers you, a sarcasm or irony tag after everything I post should be assumed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
How about comprehensive immigration law enforcement!


31 posted on 08/13/2010 11:34:55 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Some Republicans have suggested the 14th Amendment should be changed to prevent the natural born children of illegal immigrants from obtaining citizenship. The amendment was approved after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for freed slaves, especially in the South.

Most probably it was the Southern Democrats in the civil war era who were against citizenship for the children of freed slaves.

32 posted on 08/13/2010 11:36:03 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Some Republicans have suggested the 14th Amendment should be changed to prevent the natural born children of illegal immigrants from obtaining citizenship. The amendment was approved after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for freed slaves, especially in the South.

Most probably it was the Southern Democrats in the civil war era who were against citizenship for the children of freed slaves.

33 posted on 08/13/2010 11:36:03 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: and so?
How can these people, charged with the responsibility of administering the fed government, possibly function without an understanding of the document that allows them to exist as functionaries? I want all government functionaries to pass a test before they can be sworn in and allowed to serve.

I want term limits for congress as well as a defensive of marriage amendment.

34 posted on 08/13/2010 11:36:42 AM PDT by Charlespg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

I believe you’re correct and the fruitcake judge Walker overturning Prop 8 is a good example. His ruling might not stand but it shows the activist judges will stop at nothing on issues such as these.


35 posted on 08/13/2010 11:37:09 AM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Maybe that's the game they want to play, pretend they didn't know they could have stopped the abuses legislatively in order to absolve themselves of their massively irresponsible behavior.

Anchor babies are costing us billions annually but in reality is just another cheap immigration program that so many in Congress support. We take in 2 million a year legally but that's still not enough for many of them.

So far Lamar Smith is one of the few honest ones who's said publicly this can be done through legislation but it looks to me like there are those as usual trying to find excuses not to do it.

36 posted on 08/13/2010 11:37:54 AM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Amen to that.


37 posted on 08/13/2010 11:38:19 AM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

“natural born children of illegal ...”

That is the whole point, natural born MEANS a child born of US citizens, whether on US soil or otherwise authorized (Foreign servie/Mil duty and a few obsure others).

The children of illegals are NOT US citizens in the natural born sense and should not be US citizens at all.

Yes, I am a meany.


38 posted on 08/13/2010 11:41:23 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War" (my spelling is generally korrect!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
"How about comprehensive immigration law enforcement!"


39 posted on 08/13/2010 11:42:49 AM PDT by paulycy (Restore Constitutionality: Marxism is Evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Somebody tell that fat, ugly lesbi-man to shut up, or every word it says can and will be used against it at its treason trial.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

40 posted on 08/13/2010 11:42:54 AM PDT by The Comedian (Evil can only succeed if good men don't point at it and laugh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Napolitano also hit the GOP for not joining the Obama administration in calling for comprehensive immigration reform,

Immigration reform is a good idea. I'm all in favor of reforming immigration.

which would include a pathway to citizenship for the country’s illegal immigrants.

Why? Why is that necessary? There's plenty of ways to change both the immigration laws and how they are enforced in a positive fashion without doing that.

41 posted on 08/13/2010 11:46:51 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Napolitano: 'Any talk of amending the constitution is just wrong'

So, why are you talking about it, Janet??

42 posted on 08/13/2010 11:50:42 AM PDT by DustyMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

How about both of these stupid asshats just go away. Gibbs criticizes republicans as, “strict constructionists talking about tinkering with the Constitution.” That’s the way it was originally intended to be changed - not by activist judges finding “emanations and penumbras” that only exist in their addled little minds.


43 posted on 08/13/2010 12:07:44 PM PDT by rex regnum insanit (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727

That is why a constitutional amendment is needed. The 14th amendment 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.”

Born OR naturalized = automatic citizenship. Not “and”. There is no doubt that as it is in the constitution now, it is crystal clear all it takes to earn citizenship is to take your first breath on American soil.

The wording made sense back then because we basically had open borders and anyone on a ship could walk through the front door to try for a better life; this was a time when quick transportation was impossible so most of the problems we face on this issue are a byproduct of modern day technology.

Thus, the only way to fix it is a new amendment to the constitution. There is no other way to interpret the wording without being intellectually dishonest.


44 posted on 08/13/2010 12:15:43 PM PDT by WallStreetCapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WallStreetCapitalist

citizenship does not specifically state NATURAL BORN Citizenship - which Article 2, section 1 clearly states.


45 posted on 08/13/2010 12:18:51 PM PDT by roaddog727 (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: WallStreetCapitalist
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...

Illegal invaders have not subjected themselves to our immigration laws and procedures, and by extension they have not subjected their offspring to our immigration laws and procedures. Thus the argument that the 14th Amendment grant their offspring citizenship is false.

46 posted on 08/13/2010 12:29:25 PM PDT by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Some Republicans have suggested the 14th Amendment should be changed to prevent the natural born children of illegal immigrants from obtaining citizenship.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A child of illegal immigrants can NOT NOT NOT be a natural born citizen.

This author, I believe, is deliberately confusing, in an Orwellian manner, the meaning of natural born and native born.

47 posted on 08/13/2010 12:36:01 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

“...because we would just ignore it anyway.”


48 posted on 08/13/2010 12:41:52 PM PDT by CarWashMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

They are absolutely subject to our jurisdiction. If they murder someone, they go to prison. If they run a traffic light, they pay a ticket. They may not have citizenship, but if they steal from your business, they are going to jail under the laws.

The wording was meant, if I recall, to prohibit children of ambassadors and diplomats from gaining citizenship because they are the only people who can be in the United States and not subject to our laws.

In other words, the ambassador from Germany could, quite literally, shoot people on the steps of a federal courthouse and he cannot be charged with a crime because he is beyond the reach of American laws and not subject to our jurisdiction. We can only throw him our or beg Germany to remove his immunity and give us that right.

An illegal immigrant does not enjoy such rights under our constitution and treaties. If they shoot someone, they go to prison for murder. The fact that federal prosecutors may exercise discretion and deport them only underscores that they are under America’s jurisdiction.

Be intellectually honest about it. It sucks but the wording leaves no doubt that anchor babies are constitutional. That is why the constitution must be amended.

Hell, I hate the phenomenon but I couldn’t bring myself to rule against it if I were on the bench because anyone with any understanding of the purpose behind the 14th amendment and the history of it couldn’t possibly support that interpretation. It would be a form of conservative judicial activism because I would be knowingly overturning the law to fit it to what I thought was a “good” ends. That still doesn’t make it right.

Just amend the constitution.


49 posted on 08/13/2010 12:55:54 PM PDT by WallStreetCapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
On the other hand, maybe someone who got his senate seat through the proper back scratching will know that he is there to jealously guard the state's authority and budget and there will be a lot fewer mandates from the federal government. Would a senator who has to answer to his state assembly be as eager to approve laws which say "Do this (seat belts, helmets, motor voter, etc. etc.) or else you don't get any highway money"?

Blago took away a lot of my anti-17th zeal, but not all of it.

50 posted on 08/13/2010 1:00:29 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Gun control was originally to protect Klansmen from their victims. The basic reason hasn't changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson