Which other Constitutional Amendments may be in danger? Sen Lindsey Graham

[ProgressiveEconomist]

(R-SC), until recently one of the more thoughtful Republicans on immigration policy, just advocated (on Fox "News") opening the 14th Amendment to revision, eliminating automatic US citizenship for all children born here (see http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html .)

(1) Do you think he's serious about getting constitutional amendment and ratification started this year or next?

(2) If the Republicans succeed in getting constitutional amendment and ratification started this year or next, would they be able to limit the process to issues of citizenship? Wouldn't all the ultra-right single-issue advocates want to get in on the act, with amendments to deal with flag-burning (First Amendment), gun control (Second Amendment), etc etc?

(3) Which other current rights and regulations under the Constitution might be at risk?

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

1. Note it's LindsEy Graham, with an 'E', not an 'A', as in the OP.

before I was able to edit it.

That's what his Senate.gov contact page says:

http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EmailSenatorGraham

[ProgressiveEconomist]

2. IIRC, Graham said that "3 Supreme Court decisions" stand in the way

of removing the children of undocumented non-citizens from the protection of the 14th amendment. This statement puzzled me until I came upon the name of one of these decisions--"Wong Kim Ark"--and googled it. I found an EXCELLENT DK post that cleared up a lot of my puzzlement, with reference to an influential George Will WP column I hadn't heard of, based on the crackpot "legal scholarship" of a far-right Texas law professor.

Maybe the Republicans won't have to amend the Constitution to correct what they regard as a "misinterpretation" of the 14th Amendment--maybe they just need to get another Arizona law to the Bush-v-Gore-tilted USSC.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/11/852667/-citizenship-is-not-a-birth-right :

"Citizenship is not a birth right, by opendna

"a very, very interesting article in the Washington Post (at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html ), <was> authored by George Will and entitled "An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship" (March 28, 2010).

George Will’s argument is that 'To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "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." From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.'

... <Will's column> draws on the authority of Dr. Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school ... <in> "Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens" (Texas Review of Law & Politics. vol 14 no 1. Fall 2009. at http://www.trolp.org/journal/issues/v14n1 ). Graglia's article uses a selective reading of Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) to argue that the US federal government has the discretion to grant or deny birth right citizenship. Dr Graglia writes of Elk v. Wilkins:

'The decision seemed to establish that American citizenship is not an ascriptive (depending on place of birth), but is a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States as well as the individual. This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person’s citizenship than to make the source of that person’s presence in the nation illegal. (p.9) ...'

Even a cursory reading of the SCOTUS's ruling reveals that the professor has over-simplified to the point of deception. ...'

Dr Graglia approvingly quotes from the third to last paragraph (bottom of page 177) where SCOTUS approvingly quotes Judge Deady from another case:

"But an Indian cannot make himself a citizen of the United States without the consent and co-operation of the Government. The fact that he has abandoned his nomadic life or tribal relations, and adopted the habits and manners of civilized people, may be a good reason why he should be made a citizen of the United States, but does not of itself make him one. To be a citizen of the United States is a political privilege which no one, not born to, can assume without its consent in some form." In a creative use of grammar, Dr Graglia reads this passage as "To be a citizen of the United States is a political privilege which no one can assume without its consent in some form," conveniently omitting the caveat "not born to." ...

Is it possible that Dr Graglia and George Will are correct that the question of foreigners giving birth in the United States was a question un-contemplated when the 14th Amendment was ratified? Well, no...."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest of the rather long DK post IMO is well worth reading to understand what I thought were SANE Republicans are saying about the 14th Amendment,

[ProgressiveEconomist]

3. And the papers-please-law AZ state senator already has the 14th Amendment on his agenda

This could be the chosen Republican vehicle to get 14th amendment citizenship for "illegals" to the Bush-v-Gore-tilted USSC:

From http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/16/ariz-lawmaker-targets-illegal-immigrant-children :

"Ariz. Lawmaker Targets Citizenship for Kids of Illegal Immigrants

Associated Press June 16, 2010

PHOENIX -- Emboldened by passage of the nation's toughest law against illegal immigration, the Arizona politician who sponsored the measure now wants to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to undocumented parents.

Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce's proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. But Pearce brushes aside such concerns. And given the charged political atmosphere in Arizona, and public anger over what many regard as a failure by the federal government to secure the border, some politicians think the idea has a chance of passage. ...

Pearce, who has yet to draft the legislation, proposes that the state of Arizona no longer issue birth certificates unless at least one parent can prove legal status. He contends that the practice of granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. encourages illegal immigrants to come to this country to give birth and secure full rights for their children. "We create the greatest inducement for breaking our laws," he said.

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, reads: "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." But Pearce argues that the amendment was meant to protect black people. "It's been hijacked and abused," he said. "There is no provision in the 14th Amendment for the declaration of citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens."

John McGinnis, a conservative law professor at Northwestern University, said Pearce's interpretation is "just completely wrong." The "plain meaning" of the amendment is clear, he said." A similar bill was introduced at the federal level in 2009 by former Rep. Nathan Deal, a Georgia Republican, but it has gone nowhere. ...

Citizenship as a birthright is rare elsewhere in the world. Many countries require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident. ... Adopting such a practice in the U.S. would be not only unconstitutional but also impractical and expensive, said Michele Waslin, a policy analyst with the pro-immigrant Immigration Policy Center in Washington.
"Every single parent who has a child would have to go through this bureaucratic process of proving their own citizenship and therefore proving their child's citizenship," she said."

[KharmaTrain]

4. It'd Never Pass...

You'd need 2/3 votes in the House & Senate and then off it goes to the states...many with Democratic majorities. Looks like Goober is trying to make nice to the teabaggers.

The interesting aspect of this "illegal immigration" thing is the quiet ticking election bomb that could explode big time in November. Polls tend to under-report Hispanic vote and we only hear one side of this issue...our corporate media has shut down many voices against the racist and regressive Arizona law. What we're not hearing is the anger within the Hispanic community that has led to the rise in voter registrations...and in many key Red states.

The more the raw, racist nature of the GOOP is shown, the more they become a truly minority party.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

7. Granted, but wouldn't getting the process started be an end in itself,

designed to get far-right freaky-freakies rabidly enthusiastic for the 2012 election?

Perhaps combined with anti-birth-certificate ballot propositions that would increase Republican turnout before being struck down after the election?

[KharmaTrain]

9. They'll Be Out Anyway...

What isn't talked about is how these racist games are alienating the growing hispanic vote...as well as solidifying the image of the GOOP as being a country club to blacks and other minorities.

You are right that there is an end...and much of it is GOOP politics as this wedge issue is used to raise money as much as it is to get votes. Let them run on race in 2012...they're headed that way anyhow. I'm hoping the pundits and the GOOP get a big surprise in November...if they don't get all those big gains they're saying are gonna happen, we could see this inept and corrupt party implode leading to a very interesting and amusing GOOP primary.

Cheers...

[ProgressiveEconomist]

10. 'Let them run on race in 2012 ... they'e headed that way anyhow"

I agree. And IMO it was minly John McCain's unexpected veto of a racial, Reverend Wright campaign strategy that prevented Rs from going that way in 2008. I have to give McCain credit for that. But he's out of the way now, and I don't believe Palin, Gingrich, or any of the other 2012 R hopefuls share McCain's scruples.

[Dr Morbius]

5. It would require the approval of 38 states.

I can think of at least 20 that wouldn't dare anger their Hispanic voter base. This won't happen. Let them spin their wheels on this. Also, the more one tries to do with a specific Constitutional amendment, the less likely that amendment will pass. Most people in and out of government, whatever their political persuasion, feel very strongly that amending the Constitution is not done lightly and in the passion of the moment. Any amendment attempt these days would be vigorously opposed by one of the parties; if Democrats are for an amendment, Republicans will automatically oppose it and vice versa. The adversarial political climate in our country today makes it unlikely ANY amendment can pass, and pretty much guarantees a more complicated amendment or a series of amendments won't get off the ground.

Myself, I'd support an amendment which declares Congress shall have the power to define corporations as legal entities and limit their rights to access government itself or the electoral process. Which would never pass, either.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

13. All true and undoubtedly known by Graham. Then why did he say, "I may introduce

a Constitutional amendment"?

IMO, this may be his way of demagoguing a time-tested issue to further excite scapegoat-seekers on the far right. A CRUIAL national election.is only three months away, after all.

[Statistical]

6. "Wouldn't all the ultra-right single-issue advocates want to get in on the act,"

2/3 vote in house, 2/3rd vote in senate, then ratification of 3/4th of states.

The founders made it very difficult to amend the Constitution (unlike CA who stupidly decided it can be done with simple majority on a single vote).

By definition anything requiring 2/3rds vote in Congress and ratification in 3/4ths of states is not going to be "ultra-right wing".

Anyone is welcome to try to amend the Constitution. There have been roughly 2000 amendments proposed to Congress (and likely tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of attempts that never got that far). 27 have passed and ratified in the last 240 years. When you consider 10 occured at the time of the nations founding that leaves only 17 "post BofR amendments". 17 in 240 years.

The idea that some teabaggers representing 2% of the population will push through dozens of amendments that require a super-super-super majority to pass and ratify is silly.

Lots of real things to be worried about.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

8. This could be for Rs what the ERA was for Democrats

An amendment doesn't have to have a good chance of passing and getting ratified to have propaganda value, as part of an election strategy (see post #7) or to generate political pressure for judicial decisions (see posts #2 and #3).

[spanone]

11. a partisan political hack. lost his soul years ago.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

12. So Graham's Fox 'News' interview DID turn a few heads besides mine. 'Hardball'

covered it this evening after a writeup in today's 'Politico' (see cal04's post at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8839613&mesg_id=8839613 ),

[Nye Bevan]

14. I *Love* the US Constitution!

It's so difficult to amend it that despicable morons like Graham have no chance in hell of passing their stupid amendments. 39 state legislatures signing off? I think not. The Founding Fathers were geniuses.