14th Amendment, Let's Change It

The procedure for amending the Constitution is governed by Article V of the original text.

Article V

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.

18th repealed by the 21st

18th Amendment - Prohibition of alcohol
proposed: December 18, 1917
ratified/enacted: January 16, 1919

Section 1
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2
The Congress and all of the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


21st Amendment - Repeals the 18th Amendment
proposed: February 20, 1933
ratified/enacted: December 5, 1933

Section 1
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3
The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The last Amendment (so far) was originally proposed as the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789; it wasn't ratified until May 7, 1992, 203 years later.

27th Amendment - Prevents laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until the beginning of the next session of Congress.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution - the Bill of Rights - were ratified as a group on December 15, 1791.

So, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times in the last 219 years.
 
Would it fail there if the intent of Congress wasn't to grant citizenship to illegal aliens?
You mean the intent of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States, right?

Anyway, yes, because the language is unambiguous.
 
Does it really sound logical that the intention of Congress in the wording of the 14th Amendment would reward criminal activity on our border with our most precious honor, the citizenship of our country?

Does it really sound logical that the intention of Congress was to have children born here, educated in the tradition of Western Civilization, enjoy the fruits of all of the sacrifices that have been made for them and end up as embittered racists?
 
I find the ignorance of some Americans about how their own government works to be somewhat depressing.
 
I find the ignorance of some Americans about how their own government works to be somewhat depressing.

now you know why we rate so poorly on those fancy schmancy charts about functional democracies and corruption and shit.
 
There seems to be some ambiguity.

The language was crafted in Congress before being submitted to the states.

Senator Jacob Howard who helped to draft the 14th Amendment spelled out the true intent of the Amendment's meaning:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Well, if he thought that, then maybe he should have made sure it got into the actual law.

Because that's not what it says.

The intent would be of value if there were a question about what it meant, but there isn't. It's specific.
 
Does it really sound logical that the intention of Congress in the wording of the 14th Amendment would reward criminal activity on our border with our most precious honor, the citizenship of our country?
Does it really sound logical that the intention of Congress in the wording of the 14th Amendment should be to punish children for their parents' criminal activity by such extreme measures as to excile them from the country in which they were born?

There are many ways to spin this. ;)
 
"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

It's bizarre why the 14 amendment hasn't been changed so far, it's beyond ridiculous. UK and France changed the citizenship by birth "award" in the 80's. I think USA is the only country which still grants citizenships to every baby born in the States, no matter of the nationality or the immigration status of the parents. It's beyond ridiculous. It should be changed asap. The american citizenship should be protected and fought for, it's been abused instead.
 
meh. i like 'em more nerdy, but that's just me.

you are missing the point, they are BEARS!


typical of a yank to have to resort to fiction in attempting to discuss their diva-ish late entrance into WWII:D

Dude looks like a monkey.

the dude is hot. you are just jealous.
 
UK and France changed the citizenship by birth "award" in the 80's. I think USA is the only country which still grants citizenships to every baby born in the States, no matter of the nationality or the immigration status of the parents. It's beyond ridiculous. It should be changed asap. The american citizenship should be protected and fought for, it's been abused instead.


Are you sure about this?

But aren't we the racists?

How can that be?
 
Back
Top