There are certainly amendments to the United States Constitution which could be repealed for valid reasons. The sixteenth and the seventeenth come to mind. Cutting off the flow of wealth from the productive to the overbearing bureaucracy via eliminating a punitive “progressive” income tax and returning the representation of the states to the Senate seem like reasonable notions.

When thinking of amendments that need to be repealed, I do not think of the fourteenth. This amendment is fine. The problem lies with the law school indoctrinated perverts that have run amok in our nation for a generation or two. This is not to say that law schools produce perverts. I know some law school graduates who are normal human beings and read the Constitution and its amendments for what they say, as opposed to perverting them to fit whatever feels good at any given moment. Also, it is quite possible that some were perverts before their law school indoctrination.

I suppose the issue at hand is based on the granting of citizenship upon the children of illegal aliens. Currently, thanks to the previously mentioned perverts, a pregnant lady from a foreign land can illegally enter our nation and as long as she remains here long enough to give birth, her child is considered a citizen. Then of course the perverts play a sad tune about “breaking apart families” if the intruding mother comes up for deportation. Of course, the common sense solution of maintaining the family unit in the mother’s country of origin would be considered mean.

Some weak-kneed Republican political hacks might offer amendments to end birthright citizenship, knowing full well that no such amendment would make it through Congress. This is not necessary, nor is repealing the amendment which served the purpose of granting citizenship to those slaves and descendants of slaves born on United States soil with no allegiance to another nation. It is as Mark Levin writes in his best-selling (much to the chagrin of liberal perverts) book “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto” on page 154:

“The relevant part of the amendment reads that “all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Is it the position of the pervert that the author of the amendment simply included the words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” as a means to meet a minimum word requirement? Or, does the pervert simply find that the penumbras of the document extend beyond granting unseen rights to gay marriage and abortion to hiding words that actually exist in an amendment’s text?

Sam Pierce
Sam is a conservative father of 6 who would like to leave my children the free country our founding fathers established! Individual liberty requires individual responsibility!

Using a stick of dynamite to kill a mosquito: that is what amending the Fourteenth Amendment means to those who have spent more than ten minutes studying Constitutional Jurisprudence. The Fourteenth Amendment is the vertebrae upon which all modern Constitutional law cases rests. The vast majority of Constitutional cases involve the Fourteenth Amendment. Even when they don't directly involve the Fourteenth Amendment, they do so indirectly on the issue of whether those rights are “incorporated” into controlling not just federal, but state and local action as well. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not something that should be messed with cavalierly.

Senator Graham has proposed amending the Fourteenth Amendment to do away with its provision of birthright citizenship. He wants to avoid having the Constitution confer citizenship status on those born in this country to illegal immigrants. Graham believes this will solve the problem of “anchor” babies. First, there is no problem with “anchor” babies. A child born in this country to illegal immigrants cannot sponsor his illegal parents for citizenship until reaching the age of majority. Not exactly an instant payoff, and I have yet to see any data that many people ever avail themselves of this opportunity. Second, there is no payoff in terms of benefits to the parents either. The child is eligible for benefits, but the parents are not.

The bigger question, however, is that why would we resort to amending the Constitution to fix an immigration issue. The American people are rightfully very protective of their Constitution and do not take kindly to messing with it for whimsical reasons. In the past 100 years, most of the changes to the Constitution have been corrections to oversights left out of the document, or evolved thinking such as the right to vote for women or reducing the voting age to Eighteen. Amendments to the Constitution are not well suited for flash in the pan ideas, and our experience tells us that when we get swept up in the emotion of the day, we soon learn to regret it. A perfect example of this is the temperance movement which led to banning alcohol, which in turn, led to rampant organized crime: a cautionary tale for the need for Constitutional restraint.

We have very effective means to control the tide of illegal immigration without tampering with the most important Constitutional Amendment. Prosecute those who hire illegal immigrants. No need for costly Constitutional Conventions (they will cost millions of dollars). No need to grapple with what will clearly be difficult language to construct. No need to set off a wave of new litigation of what was heretofore settled questions on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. No need for the ship of unintended consequences to set sail.

But suppose we all thought this was a good idea, and that it could be done. So anyone born to illegal immigrant parents would no longer be a citizen. And how far back would we go, one generation, two generations, three generations? Under this model, all descendants of slaves would not be citizens. And what proof of citizenship would we require? Would I be regarded as a non-citizen because I could not prove my ancestors at the turn of the last century entered this country legally? And this is why you should not use a stick of dynamite to kill a mosquito.

John J. Pawloski
Mr. Pawloski is a lawyer in St. Louis, Missouri and an an unapologetic liberal, progressive. He can be contacted on Facebook and his blog can be found at Tumblr.com.