strict constitutionalists? or restrict?
Aug. 5th, 2010 12:58 pmIn case you hadn't heard, there are some folks, including those who should know better, who want to "examine" repealing the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
To refresh your memory, the 14th Amendment proffers the equal protection clause. Along with the 13th & 15th Amendments, it was one of the legal masterstrokes that abolished slavery (that is, gave those previously considered nonpersons citizenship as well as equal protection under the law). To stand here today, a sesquicentennium from the start of the Civil War, it would seem that clause would have stood the test of time.
But now here come certain conservative elements who want to "revisit" the 14th Amendment, because no one could have anticipated the rise of (I use this term under duress) 'anchor babies', those children born to non-US citizens on native soil who are, under said Amendment, granted US citizenship (another one of its clauses).
This type of talk had been relegated to the chambers of such as the Tea Party until recently. Now, distinguished Congresspersons such as Senators John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham have given voice to this notion.
Let no one forget that it is the 14th Amendment that has been one of the hallmarks of civil liberties since its inception. Indeed, it was under its auspices that Prop 8 was overturned in California yesterday (thanks for the link,
pgdudda). It was the 14th Amendment that effectually overturned the Dred Scott decision less than a generation before and that paved the way for Brown v. Board of Education 100 years later.
In addition to guaranteeing equal protection, it also established due process (its third clause). As such, it undergirds Roe v. Wade as well as Miranda v. Arizona (as watered down as this current court has made that). It would be wise for one and all to fully consider what the ramifications of repeal would mean for day-to-day, hand-to-mouth reality of United States citizens (and residents, and tourists, too).
Such talk would be laughable if it were not also so dangerous. Under the guise of "keeping the illegals out" (another ridiculous notion in a nation of immigrants), certain moneyed and landed lawmakers suggest knocking one of the pegs that steadies the foundation of what we in the States have come to know as modern democracy.
We live in critical times.
See also:
In the Senate, where does immigration politics end and racism start?
The Daily Show, Aug. 3, 2010: Born in the USA
Sexist, Racist Republicans Compare Immigrant Women to Farm Animals
Lou Dobbs: Keep the 14th Amendment
To refresh your memory, the 14th Amendment proffers the equal protection clause. Along with the 13th & 15th Amendments, it was one of the legal masterstrokes that abolished slavery (that is, gave those previously considered nonpersons citizenship as well as equal protection under the law). To stand here today, a sesquicentennium from the start of the Civil War, it would seem that clause would have stood the test of time.
But now here come certain conservative elements who want to "revisit" the 14th Amendment, because no one could have anticipated the rise of (I use this term under duress) 'anchor babies', those children born to non-US citizens on native soil who are, under said Amendment, granted US citizenship (another one of its clauses).
This type of talk had been relegated to the chambers of such as the Tea Party until recently. Now, distinguished Congresspersons such as Senators John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham have given voice to this notion.
Let no one forget that it is the 14th Amendment that has been one of the hallmarks of civil liberties since its inception. Indeed, it was under its auspices that Prop 8 was overturned in California yesterday (thanks for the link,
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
In addition to guaranteeing equal protection, it also established due process (its third clause). As such, it undergirds Roe v. Wade as well as Miranda v. Arizona (as watered down as this current court has made that). It would be wise for one and all to fully consider what the ramifications of repeal would mean for day-to-day, hand-to-mouth reality of United States citizens (and residents, and tourists, too).
Such talk would be laughable if it were not also so dangerous. Under the guise of "keeping the illegals out" (another ridiculous notion in a nation of immigrants), certain moneyed and landed lawmakers suggest knocking one of the pegs that steadies the foundation of what we in the States have come to know as modern democracy.
We live in critical times.
See also:
In the Senate, where does immigration politics end and racism start?
The Daily Show, Aug. 3, 2010: Born in the USA
Sexist, Racist Republicans Compare Immigrant Women to Farm Animals
Lou Dobbs: Keep the 14th Amendment