Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment
in [Toyota]
|
From: Kali on 11 Aug 2010 19:11 Must read Op-Ed by Harold Meyerson. Excellent arguments; well researched. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081004586.html Excerpts ------------------------------- By pushing for repeal of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, the GOP appears to have concluded: If you can't win them [Latinos] over -- indeed, if you're doing everything in your power to make their lives miserable -- revoke their citizenship. ------------------------------- The Confederates had renounced all allegiance to the United States. They made war on the United States -- the Constitution's definition of treason -- and, in an effort to keep 4 million Americans enslaved, killed more of our soldiers than any foreign army ever did. Yet Lincoln was determined to make it easy for Confederates to regain their citizenship. By taking an oath to support the United States and its Constitution, Confederates were made Americans again. Suppose, though, that Lincoln had been filled with the spirit of today's Republicans.... -------------------------------- He points to another well done piece by EJ Dionne at WaPo, very much worth a read. -- Kali
From: Aratzio on 11 Aug 2010 19:56 On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:11:02 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Kali <yourgoddesskali(a)gmail.inv> got double secret probation for writing: > >Must read Op-Ed by Harold Meyerson. >Excellent arguments; well researched. > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- >dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081004586.html > >Excerpts >------------------------------- >By pushing for repeal of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, >the GOP appears to have concluded: If you can't win them [Latinos] >over -- indeed, if you're doing everything in your power to make >their lives miserable -- revoke their citizenship. >------------------------------- >The Confederates had renounced all allegiance to the United States. >They made war on the United States -- the Constitution's definition >of treason -- and, in an effort to keep 4 million Americans >enslaved, killed more of our soldiers than any foreign army ever >did. > >Yet Lincoln was determined to make it easy for Confederates to >regain their citizenship. By taking an oath to support the United >States and its Constitution, Confederates were made Americans again. > >Suppose, though, that Lincoln had been filled with the spirit of >today's Republicans.... >-------------------------------- > >He points to another well done piece by EJ Dionne at WaPo, very much >worth a read. More importantly, any politician that is running on altering the constitution is lying. It takes years and quite often decades to change the constitution. 2/3 of both houses and 38 states (legislature or conventions) Constitutional convention ropoed by 2/3 ratified by 3/4 Then the one where states request congress call a convention and then is ratified by 3/4. So, how long will it take to get 2/3 of both houses to agree on either a new amendment or a repeal? If that were to occur then they have 7 years to get 38 states to pass the proposed amendment. So, for wingnut policy to be enacted would essentially require 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states to become wingnut. ..
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 11 Aug 2010 20:11 On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:11:02 -0400, Kali wrote: > > Must read Op-Ed by Harold Meyerson. > Excellent arguments; well researched. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- > dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081004586.html > > Excerpts > ------------------------------- > By pushing for repeal of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, > the GOP appears to have concluded: If you can't win them [Latinos] > over -- indeed, if you're doing everything in your power to make > their lives miserable -- revoke their citizenship. Um, who said "revoke Citizenship"? the writer of the Op Ed piece? These people aren't Citizens. They aren't Resident Aliens. They're not even "Undocumented Aliens". They are illegal immigrants. Since it is becoming more and more apparent you only hear/read what supports your issues, the repeal of the 14th Amendment refers to illegals coming here and haviung children, who then become "anchor babies" and make it easier for the illegals to get through the immigration process, which they totally bypassed in the first place. Also, "Baby Tours" from around the world that cater to pregnant women from everywhere, bring them here when their about ready to pop, they have the kids who are now "US Citizens", and then return home. Well, at least that's better, since when the kid becomes of age (s)he has to decide whether to stay where they reside or excercise their US Citizenship. That's what's being targeted in the 14th Amendment, and not what Randi Rhodes told you to think it meant. Basically, if an illegal alien comes and has a kid, the kid will be treated as illegal since IT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN BORN HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. What's so hard to understand about that?
From: Kali on 11 Aug 2010 20:58 In article <9pd66615bj3h3mqjv6qt514mgnrchc6loc(a)4ax.com>, Aratzio a6ahlyv02(a)sneakemail.com says... > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:11:02 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Kali > <yourgoddesskali(a)gmail.inv> got double secret probation for writing: > > > > >Must read Op-Ed by Harold Meyerson. > >Excellent arguments; well researched. > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- > >dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081004586.html > > > >Excerpts > >------------------------------- > >By pushing for repeal of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, > >the GOP appears to have concluded: If you can't win them [Latinos] > >over -- indeed, if you're doing everything in your power to make > >their lives miserable -- revoke their citizenship. > >------------------------------- > >The Confederates had renounced all allegiance to the United States. > >They made war on the United States -- the Constitution's definition > >of treason -- and, in an effort to keep 4 million Americans > >enslaved, killed more of our soldiers than any foreign army ever > >did. > > > >Yet Lincoln was determined to make it easy for Confederates to > >regain their citizenship. By taking an oath to support the United > >States and its Constitution, Confederates were made Americans again. > > > >Suppose, though, that Lincoln had been filled with the spirit of > >today's Republicans.... > >-------------------------------- > > > >He points to another well done piece by EJ Dionne at WaPo, very much > >worth a read. > > More importantly, any politician that is running on altering the > constitution is lying. > > It takes years and quite often decades to change the constitution. > > 2/3 of both houses and 38 states (legislature or conventions) > > Constitutional convention ropoed by 2/3 ratified by 3/4 > > Then the one where states request congress call a convention and then > is ratified by 3/4. > > So, how long will it take to get 2/3 of both houses to agree on either > a new amendment or a repeal? > > If that were to occur then they have 7 years to get 38 states to pass > the proposed amendment. > > So, for wingnut policy to be enacted would essentially require 2/3 of > congress and 3/4 of states to become wingnut. > . But... but... the wingnuts want the Constitution left alooooone! Well, only conservative activist judges are allowed to legislate from the bench. Wait. Oh, dear. It's all so confusing. -- Kali
From: Judge Crater on 11 Aug 2010 21:15
On Aug 11, 7:56 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:11:02 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Kali > <yourgoddessk...(a)gmail.inv> got double secret probation for writing: > > > > > > >Must read Op-Ed by Harold Meyerson. > >Excellent arguments; well researched. > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- > >dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081004586.html > > >Excerpts > >------------------------------- > >By pushing for repeal of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, > >the GOP appears to have concluded: If you can't win them [Latinos] > >over -- indeed, if you're doing everything in your power to make > >their lives miserable -- revoke their citizenship. > >------------------------------- > >The Confederates had renounced all allegiance to the United States. > >They made war on the United States -- the Constitution's definition > >of treason -- and, in an effort to keep 4 million Americans > >enslaved, killed more of our soldiers than any foreign army ever > >did. > > >Yet Lincoln was determined to make it easy for Confederates to > >regain their citizenship. By taking an oath to support the United > >States and its Constitution, Confederates were made Americans again. > > >Suppose, though, that Lincoln had been filled with the spirit of > >today's Republicans.... > >-------------------------------- > > >He points to another well done piece by EJ Dionne at WaPo, very much > >worth a read. > > More importantly, any politician that is running on altering the > constitution is lying. > > It takes years and quite often decades to change the constitution. > > 2/3 of both houses and 38 states (legislature or conventions) > > Constitutional convention ropoed by 2/3 ratified by 3/4 > > Then the one where states request congress call a convention and then > is ratified by 3/4. > > So, how long will it take to get 2/3 of both houses to agree on either > a new amendment or a repeal? > > If that were to occur then they have 7 years to get 38 states to pass > the proposed amendment. > > So, for wingnut policy to be enacted would essentially require 2/3 of > congress and 3/4 of states to become wingnut. > . Forced secession would be easier. More fun, too. |