It is going to collapse
It is not going to collapse
Either statement is true, depending on the somnolence of the rest of us. There is also some research to indicate that Millennials are not at all charged up about the Social Contract things older (non-Baggers) are. They ARE on to the “social liberalism” stuff…substance stuff, dating other races, some sexual behavior things…but lots of these people are just as hooked on to the “I can make a millions dollars too!” as people on the Other Side.
If the folks my Dad’s age had the mentality of the asleep among us, Hitler would have won (on the Western Front anyway). Maybe the menace of the Axis was communicated to the youngsters of the 1940s (in that non-information age).
I would love to see a comprehensive list of adult “anchor babies” alongside a list of their achievements. I’m sure it would be a very enlightening revelation to all those people who think such people are a drain on society’s resources. My guess, and it’s just a guess, is that many “anchor babies” grow up to become high achievers and contribute greatly to their communities and country.
The standard Trump position, though, is to always throw the baby out with the bathwater.
“Earlier this year, legislation that would have rolled back birthright citizenship put the GOP senators running for president on the spot.”
I've read of this and wondered (but not yet researched) can Congress effectively alter or amend an Amendment to the Constitution via legislation? Below is text, for example, to the 6th Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an ***impartial jury*** of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have ***compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor***, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Could Congress merely pass a law stripping the right to an impartial jury and the defense's right to compel witness testimony? No? Then how can Congress strip out or alter a component of the 14th Amendment?
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.
This article’s part is very important, because one of the reasons why that amendment was adopted was on account of this. The sad thing about Trump’s ‘call’ (besides putting him in this guy’s camp) is that the party that proposed the 14th is now the party that seeks to destroy it…consequences be damned.
Like you, I have the same feelings. And I am extremely grateful to have grown up with Americans (albeit overseas) after WWII.
The thing that gets me is that the TeaBaggers came of age during a time (1947-1973) in which there was the most movement toward wage equality in history in the U.S.
They experienced it
They profited from it
Now they wish to dismantle it
Ah, the much anticipated “pivot” back from “women’s issues” to “immigration reform.”
Such a well-oiled machine, that campaign is. And the oil is vaseline.
No. No they can’t. The idea that they can makes Birtherism and 9/11 Trutherism look sane and reasonable by comparison. That’s the level of ridiculousness we’re talking about here.
Jefferson had this hazy notion that interpreting the Constitution should be kind of a joint project of the president, Congress and the state governments, and the state and federal courts. It was as stupid as many of his ideas were. (Honestly, the man’s legacy is so thoroughly, spasmodically mixed, the overrated greatness so tainted by foolishness, cupidity, and general awfulness, how the hell he ended up with the big-ass D.C. memorial instead of John Adams remains a complete fucking mystery to me). John Marshall put an end to it with Marbury v. Madison.
The sovereign citizen types either don’t acknowledge Marbury or else, being who they are, claim it says the opposite of what it says, but it’s sheer lunacy.
I agree. However, this legislation has been prominently referenced by multiple media sources over the course of many months. And not one time have I heard anyone question the validity of Congress’ ability to legally do what the bill proposes. No one even goes there as an intellectual exercise. It’s just left laying there, as if it is possible and legal, and the public is left to sop it up unchallenged. It’s no wonder we’re surrounded by idiots aping Trump’s stupidity. They hear it on the news and it becomes fact. You say you’re not happy with an Amendment to the Constitution!!?! Well, just tell Congress to pass a law changing it!! Presto, done!
That’s a cue for a PhD thesis. Has something to do with how ideology trumps realty every time.
Or, put another way, adopt the values of those you’re trying to please, no matter how false or even repugnant those values be. Ever been in a meeting in which the boss says something really stupid or bigoted and there’s nods of agreement all round? Ugh.
Why is it necessarily racist? Most of our democratic allies including Israel and virtually all of Europe do not have unconditional birthright citizenship. Slavery is hardly still relevant to the issue.
Ever been in a meeting in which the boss says something really stupid or bigoted and there’s nods of agreement all round?
Yes I have and I struggled to keep from bursting out in laughter when a couple of minutes later the boss would state a position 180 degree opposite and the same heads would nod. We had one guy who would then pontificate as to why the idea was the best thing since sliced bread. Fond memories of the Board Room…
I’ve done some research on this. Birthright citizenship actually long predates the 14th Amendment. It was part of English Common Law from Calvin’s Case in 1608, before any of the English colonies here were founded. The 14th Amendment clarified that this applied to blacks, who had been deprived of citizenship by the infamous Dred Scott decision, but it didn’t create birthright citizenship.
I will also note that while birthright citizenship has been limited in most of the Old World, it is virtually ubiquitous in the New World, whether in countries that follow English Common law, including Canada or those of Spanish or Portuguese origin.
