14th Amendment, Let's Change It

[unregistered]

 

[Killswitch]

Why do Republicans hate Latinos so much.

What did they ever do to the G.O.P.

Just leave em the fuck alone and let them enjoy this country like you do.

For fucks sakes.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I'ts a purely political ploy by the Republicans. They KNOW that it will never happen. But they played the music and you're dancing the jig.

They had a good long time to do something about illegal immigration and did nothing. If you think that they're going to change or repeal the 14th Amendment then you're not half as smart as I give you credit for.

 

[where]

if yo change the 14th amendment, wouldn't that leave other amendments open to change?

 

[kbate]

if yo change the 14th amendment, wouldn't that leave other amendments open to change?

They are all open to change already and should either party gain 67% of the congress - we will certainly see it happen.

Until then, it's just talk.

 

[Killswitch]

I'ts a purely political ploy by the Republicans. They KNOW that it will never happen. But they played the music and you're dancing the jig.

They had a good long time to do something about illegal immigration and did nothing. If you think that they're going to change or repeal the 14th Amendment then you're not half as smart as I give you credit for.

Dood I don't care about amendments or dancing a jig.

The republicans are fucking racist and while that may be a simplistic sometimes wrong viewpoint, at the end of the day they don't like Mexicans, or blacks and everyone knows it.

Stop with the god damned charades.

 

[Killswitch]

They are all open to change already and should either party gain 67% of the congress - we will certainly see it happen.

Until then, it's just talk.

Or you can just shit all over the Constitution and Bill of Rights like Bush did when he started wiretapping everyone.

 

[Byron In Exile]

if yo change the 14th amendment, wouldn't that leave other amendments open to change?

They always have been.

 

[Wok]

"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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

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

Maybe the new Congress can get up the balls to explore the possibility of making an exception in the case of illegal aliens:

Across Texas, 60,000 babies of noncitizens get U.S. birthright

08:59 AM CDT on Sunday, August 8, 2010

By SHERRY JACOBSON / The Dallas Morning News
sjacobson@dallasnews.com

As Republican members of Congress press for changes to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, preventing automatic citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrants, opponents insist the debate is not really about babies.

Instead, they say it is about politics and votes – not fixing the immigration system.

Still, the debate could resonate in Texas, where not only 1.5 million illegal immigrants are estimated to reside but at least 60,000 babies are added to their households annually.

Rest of story here:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/080810dnmetbabies.2be9a7e.html

No thanks.

 

[Byron In Exile]

They are all open to change already and should either party gain 67% of the congress - we will certainly see it happen.

Until then, it's just talk.

It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress, plus three-fourths of the State legislatures.

 

[Wok]

It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress, plus three-fourths of the State legislatures.

I did not know the latter part. Yeah, that would be difficult.

 

[pointless]

I did not know the latter part. Yeah, that would be difficult.

kinda makes you wonder what the fuck was wrong with everyone when they passed prohibition.

 

[where]

They are all open to change already and should either party gain 67% of the congress - we will certainly see it happen.

Until then, it's just talk.

They always have been.

so why all the screaming when they try to bring in gun law?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

if yo change the 14th amendment, wouldn't that leave other amendments open to change?

I'm not sure that an Amendment can be changed once ratified. Repealed and then replaced by another Amendment (like the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th < nationwide Prohibition of Alcohol>) certainly, by the usual means.

1) Two thirds of both houses of Congress must propose a constitutional amendment. Once this happens, the proposed amendment is submitted to the states. The legislatures of 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment for it to become part of the Constitution

-or-

2) A Constitutional Convention: This method starts with the states. The legislatures of the states apply to congress for a convention to propose amendments to the constitution. If 2/3 of the states make such applications, congress must call the convention. Once such a convention is called, and amendments are proposed, the amendment(s) must be ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. This method has never actually been used to amend the constitution, but Congress has proposed amendments in response to threats by states to call a convention, likely to retain some control over the amendment process.

source

 

[Byron In Exile]

I did not know the latter part. Yeah, that would be difficult.

It's been done 27 times.

 

[Byron In Exile]

so why all the screaming when they try to bring in gun law?

I don't... understand the question.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Byron In Exile]

I'm not sure...

You should have stopped there.

 

[Wok]

It's been done 27 times.

Yeah? Hm. Interesting.

 

[where]

I don't... understand the question.

Can you elaborate?

every time introducing gun laws is mentioned, all the wingnuts (and a few lib loons) scream about it violating the second amendment. if amendments can be changed, then why all the fuss?

 

[Byron In Exile]

Yeah? Hm. Interesting.

Most recently in 1992, an Amendment which was originally submitted in 1789.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You should have stopped there.

No, I went on to explain exactly how an Amendment can be repealed and replaced along with the legal source to reinforce that position. There is no provision to alter or change an Amendment once it's in place other than to pass another Amendment repealing it of which I'm aware.

Unless of course you want to point out the factual error with my post then you're just being a douche for the sake of being a douche.

I mean, someone might think you just don't like me or something.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Paging Mr. Vettebigot to the bitchslap room......

Maybe the new Congress can get up the balls to explore the possibility of making an exception in the case of <blah blah blah>

It's not often you'll see a Real American™ such as myself align with a fringe conservative like Alan Keyes. However, I'm willing to put aside my differences with Mr. Keyes in order to deliver a thundering bitchslap across the Vettebigot's florid face.

"The 14th Amendment is not something one should play with lightly,Lindsay Graham used the term -- as people have carelessly done over the years -- referring to the 14th Amendment as something that has to do with 'birthright citizenship' and we ought to get rid of 'birthright citizenship. Well, let me see...

If citizenship is not a birthright then it must be a grant of the government. And if it is a grant of the government, it could curtail that grant in all the ways that fascists and totalitarians always want to."

 

[Byron In Exile]

every time introducing gun laws is mentioned, all the wingnuts (and a few lib loons) scream about it violating the second amendment. if amendments can be changed, then why all the fuss?

Because the Second Amendment hasn't been changed.

 

[Wok]

Most recently in 1992, an Amendment which was originally submitted in 1789.

I will look that up. Not that I doubt you, but to learn something.