The Rocky Mountain News editorial staff sounds off on proposed changes to the 14th Amendment [December 29, 2005, "Don't end-run 14th Amendment"]. They write, "For almost 140 years, the 14th Amendment has been presumed to grant U.S. citizenship to anyone born here except the children of foreign diplomats.
"But now there's an effort in Congress, supported by Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, that would remove the right for the children of illegal immigrants - not by amending the Constitution, but by passing a bill.
"It may in fact be time to address birthright citizenship, but we don't believe it can be done by legislation. If you're going to tamper with the Constitution, you've got to do it the hard way. You pass an amendment. If Congress tries to revise the Constitution through legislation, it is no different from 'activist judges' some members complain about.
"Here's what the 14th Amendment's Section One says: '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.'
"Proposed in June 1866, a year after the Civil War, and ratified by July 1868, it was designed to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's egregious Dred Scott ruling of 1857, which held that slaves were not and couldn't become citizens. The main Supreme Court decision applying the doctrine to all persons born here was the Wong Kim Ark ruling of 1898, which said the child of Chinese immigrants - themselves not at that time even eligible for citizenship - could be a citizen by virtue of his birth here. After all, even though the amendment may have been inspired by the slaves' status, it doesn't specifically refer to them. Others born here are just as eligible because they are clearly 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States.
"Tancredo argues differently on his Web site. He claims the drafters never intended to confer citizenship on the children of illegal immigrants and that mere physical presence in the land doesn't necessarily make a child subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
"Perhaps the amendment's authors would agree with Tancredo if they could pipe up today. But of course they can't. The key phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof" exempts only diplomatic personnel, who are not subject to U.S. laws.'
Meanwhile, according to TalkLeft, the ACLU is, "calling for a special counsel to investigate Bush and the NSA warrantless electronic surveillance." Here's the link to the ACLU advertisement that will be running in the New York Times.
Political Wire: "Ron Brownstein acknowledges that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is the clear frontrunner for Democrats in 2008. But he makes an important observation: 'The most significant development in the Democratic presidential race this year was that one potential candidate to Clinton's left and one to her right each took a step past the others in their bracket.' On the left: 'The potential candidate who improved his situation the most was Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold... over the last year, Feingold has not only raised his visibility but done so by attaching himself to a specific agenda with a clear Democratic constituency.' On the right: 'This year's winner was outgoing Virginia Gov. Mark Warner. As Warner begins traveling the country, he is laying claim to a clear brand: the red state savior. Warner presents himself as the candidate whose message of fiscal discipline and social moderation can win back some of the culturally conservative states where Bush romped twice.'"
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
6:10:26 AM 
|
