-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Cafeteria Constitutionalists
Author: BobR
Date: 08/18/2010 10:29:12
It's been said we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. Our laws come from a framework put into place over 200 years ago: the founding document of our country known as the Constitution. It is a brilliantly written and conceived document in both it's simplicity, and the complex ideas it encases. Lately, it seems that we have a certain segment of the population that feels we've strayed too far from that original document, and are clamoring for a return to it. Like the checks and balances that are part of our political construct, there is a fair amount of yin and yang in the Constitution, But - based on their rhetoric - one has to wonder: do they love all of the Constitution, or are they only interested in certain parts?
With all of the xenophobic hand-wringing over immigration problems (nothing new, really), the 14th Amendment seems to be the target du jour. This amendment covers a lot of territory, most notably with regards to "birthright citizenship" and equal protection under the law (as well as a few other things related to the Civil War). Apparently, there are certain Americans that think it is patriotic to deny citizenship to children born here based on their parents. The exact language is:
There is also Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
Those who oppose this refer to the children as "anchor babies", without realizing just how difficult it is for the child's parents to gain citizenship:
So their opposition to a part of our Constitution is based on their faulty knowledge of a legal process. That is pretty sad...
Then there are the "tenthers" (those who focus solely on the 10th amendment) who believe that "states rights" are supreme. They deride any law that they feel imposes too much on a state's ability to deny rights or ignore laws passed by the U.S. Congress. They seem to ignore some of the other provisions of Article 1, Section 8:
That gives Congress a LOT of power. Those who don't like the new HCR law package, or gay marriage, or a host of other issues seem to think they can override Federal law, or simply call it unConstitutional. It isn't, and they can't - at least not successfully.
Then there's everyone's favorite: The 2nd Amendment. This is the one every gun nut loves to quote... except - the seem to forget one small part of it:
Where else do you find the words militia in the Constitution? Oh yeah - Article 1, Section 8 again:
Hmmm... that doesn't sound like everyone can just have whatever gun they want for whatever purpose they want. But let's get the educated opinion of someone that's more of legal scholar than I am:
That sounds a little like the National Guard, but with the soldiers supplying their own weapons. It certainly seems to me that the rational for the 2nd amendment was to arm a militia in service to its country.
Finally, another bit of ugliness that's current involves the 1st Amendment's guarantees of Freedom of Religion:
Yet - some people think it is patriotic to try and deny those of the Muslim faith a community center in an old Burlington Coat Factory storefront several blocks from "Ground Zero" because they think that location is "hallowed ground" (considering Jesus ran the money changers out of the temple, you have to wonder what He'd think of calling a "Trade Center" where usury was a way of business "hallowed"). Persecuting a group of people because of their faith is the exact reason so many people came to America in the first place. That's why it's the first freedom specified in the 1st Amendment - it was that important to our founding fathers (most of whom were not churchgoers themselves).
Those who hold up small parts of the Constitution to justify their narrow beliefs while proclaiming themselves to be patriotic or "real Americans" are the worst sort of scoundrels. The Constitution is not a menu - you can't pick and choose. It's take it or leave - ALL of it.
I'll take it.
With all of the xenophobic hand-wringing over immigration problems (nothing new, really), the 14th Amendment seems to be the target du jour. This amendment covers a lot of territory, most notably with regards to "birthright citizenship" and equal protection under the law (as well as a few other things related to the Civil War). Apparently, there are certain Americans that think it is patriotic to deny citizenship to children born here based on their parents. The exact language is:
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.
There is also Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power [...] To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Those who oppose this refer to the children as "anchor babies", without realizing just how difficult it is for the child's parents to gain citizenship:
The term "anchor baby" is a misnomer to the extent that it implies that by having a baby in the US, temporary or illegal immigrants can "anchor" themselves in the US. In fact, a US citizen child cannot file for a US visa for its parents until the child is 21 years of age, and upon reaching that age the child must also be earning at least 125% of the US poverty threshold to be able to apply. Thus, temporary or illegal immigrants who have babies in the US have no means of remaining legally in the US; they must return home and wait until the child reaches age 21.
So their opposition to a part of our Constitution is based on their faulty knowledge of a legal process. That is pretty sad...
Then there are the "tenthers" (those who focus solely on the 10th amendment) who believe that "states rights" are supreme. They deride any law that they feel imposes too much on a state's ability to deny rights or ignore laws passed by the U.S. Congress. They seem to ignore some of the other provisions of Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
[...]
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
[...]
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
That gives Congress a LOT of power. Those who don't like the new HCR law package, or gay marriage, or a host of other issues seem to think they can override Federal law, or simply call it unConstitutional. It isn't, and they can't - at least not successfully.
Then there's everyone's favorite: The 2nd Amendment. This is the one every gun nut loves to quote... except - the seem to forget one small part of it:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Where else do you find the words militia in the Constitution? Oh yeah - Article 1, Section 8 again:
The Congress shall have power to [...] provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Hmmm... that doesn't sound like everyone can just have whatever gun they want for whatever purpose they want. But let's get the educated opinion of someone that's more of legal scholar than I am:
In United States v. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that "[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view." The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
That sounds a little like the National Guard, but with the soldiers supplying their own weapons. It certainly seems to me that the rational for the 2nd amendment was to arm a militia in service to its country.
Finally, another bit of ugliness that's current involves the 1st Amendment's guarantees of Freedom of Religion:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Yet - some people think it is patriotic to try and deny those of the Muslim faith a community center in an old Burlington Coat Factory storefront several blocks from "Ground Zero" because they think that location is "hallowed ground" (considering Jesus ran the money changers out of the temple, you have to wonder what He'd think of calling a "Trade Center" where usury was a way of business "hallowed"). Persecuting a group of people because of their faith is the exact reason so many people came to America in the first place. That's why it's the first freedom specified in the 1st Amendment - it was that important to our founding fathers (most of whom were not churchgoers themselves).
Those who hold up small parts of the Constitution to justify their narrow beliefs while proclaiming themselves to be patriotic or "real Americans" are the worst sort of scoundrels. The Constitution is not a menu - you can't pick and choose. It's take it or leave - ALL of it.
I'll take it.
