The Constitution Today: 14th Amendment
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-01-10/constitution-today-14th-amendment
![- The National Archives "Charters of Freedom"](http://thedianerehmshow.org/sites/thedianerehmshow.org/files/imagecache/620xH/images/headline/14th_amendment_pg1of2_ac.jpg "- The National Archives "Charters of Freedom"")
Written in the aftermath of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment remains a battleground in the debate over citizenship and rights. Our series on the Constitution Today examines the amendment and how it's been challenged through history.
Guests
Bruce Fein
former associate deputy attorney general, Republican counsel during the Iran-contra hearings, and founding partner with the Lichfield Group
Michael Meyerson
professor of law at the University of Baltimore and author of "Liberty's Blueprint" and "Political Numeracy."
Sherrilyn Ifill
professor, University of Maryland School of Law, co-founder of the Reentry of Ex-Offenders Clinic and author of "On the Courthouse Lawn."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Is it true that the United State Congress once referred to the African-Americans as 3/5th of a person under the law? If so, how much of a person did they once considered the Asian-Americans, the Arab-Americans and the Americans of Spanish descent? And when, how and what made these great Americans of other descents other than European, a full human beings under the law?
SF Chronicle: "Jared Loughner: Focus on delusions, not politics", 09_01-2011:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F01%2F09%2F... :
"Suspect's contact with police
"Loughner's troubles caught the attention of authorities last fall at Pima Community College in Tucson, where he was a student. His erratic behavior in the classroom and at the library led to five contacts with the police, college officials said.
"In September 2010, police found a YouTube video, which has since been removed, in which he claimed the college is 'illegal.'
"Administrators suspended Loughner on Sept. 29....
"Police delivered the letter of suspension to Loughner at his parents' home, where he lived, & spoke with both Loughner & his mother & father...."
This rather than the police bringing a mental health professional to Loughner at his parents' home to have Loughner assessed for need of state-funded hospitalization or some form of state-funded community-based mental health services...
Was delivering a letter of suspension the only strategy the police had at their disposal to deal with a person who is plainly severely mentally ill, worsening & could reasonably be assumed to be potentially unpredictably violent????
Why didn't a mental health professional deliver the letter of suspension to Loughner, if possible as part of a weekly meeting?? if necessary, accompanied by the police??????? Answer- no state-funding has been approved for such a programme in Arizona...
"A follow-up letter to Loughner from administrators said that he would not be able to return to college unless he received clearance from a mental health professional...
"By that point, at least one of Loughner's professors & several students had expressed concerns about his behavior...
CONTINUED
Wow! I'm impressed. The show hasn't even aired yet and people are already able to comment on it.
Dear MrRoderickvLouis:
Why did you post that here? Doesn't your Comment belong with the other hour's story?
Oh, and MrRoderickvLouis, while you were so busy quoting from, and giving the link to, that SF Chronicle news story, why did you omit the part that undercuts much of your argument?
"Laws sought on mentally ill
In California and Arizona, people believed to be mentally ill can be hospitalized involuntarily only if they're considered a danger to themselves or others or if their illness has left them severely disabled. Only a judge can force someone to undergo treatment. Parents cannot."
Get it? You can't just 'round up' people you believe to be mentally ill and incarcerate them, even for 'treatment'. You want to live in such a country, move to Russia!
Correction:
The 3/5ths compromise was actually meant to _limit_ the power of slave-owners: if slaves were counted fully, the voters (men of property, and so in the South generally slave-owning) would have more power in the House than they would otherwise. Northern states' representatives didn't want slaves or Indians counted at all, Southern states' wanted them counted fully (just not allowed to vote).
(Notice that today, illegal immigrants are included in the totals, boosting the representation [probably not by much, yet] of their states in the House even as those states elect representatives who grand-stand against them.)
My comment: the 14th Amendment was foisted on the defeated South by a triumphalist North. This is just fine with me. There are consequences to rebelling and losing: once you have taken an argument way beyond the limits of the law and into the House of Violence---and the White South shot first, as surely as did Han Solo---you can't expect the spirit of the law to remain intact for your benefit. Given that, at least in theory this amendment benefitted a great fraction of the Southerners---even if it did take a Supreme Court more willing to use the amendment for the benefit of Black people, rather than railway companies---it can't be said that this amendment was bad for 'the South', just that portion of 'the South' whose lowest orders were kept down by telling them that at least they were superior to an entire race of men.
How did CORPORATIONS come to have the 'rights' of citizenship?!?!?!?!
Is Ms. Ifle(?) related to Gwen Ifle of PBS news? If so, what an terrific Thanksgiving gathering that must be w/such intellegent & strong women in their family.
Dolapo Subomi on
January 8, 2011 @ 7:59 pm asked: "Is it true that the United State Congress once referred to the African-Americans as 3/5th of a person under the law?"
No. The U.S. Constitution refers to slaves as 3/5ths of a person. The distinction is important for two reasons:
1) The Congress had nothing to do with creating the Constitution. That was done by a separate constitutional convention, and by ratification of its 'work product' (the Constitution itself) by the original 13 States.
2) The provision in question (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3) doesn't refer to African-Americans, or even to slaves (a word the drafters assiduously avoided). It's precise words are "the whole number of free persons, including . . . three fifths of all other persons. The distinction is not based on race, but on "servitude" (as the 15th Amendment would later put it). Of course, most of the slaves were black, but the provision (horrible as it was) wasn't racial in motivation. Happily, it's also a 'dead letter' part of the Constitution, thanks in part to the 14th Amendment.
From a chat from the Washington Post (washpost.com):
Pittsburgh, Pa.: Is Professor Sherrilyn Ifill at the University of Maryland Law School, who's spoken out so eloquently and thoughtfully on symbols of racial hatred lately, any relation to you?
Gwen Ifill: She is indeed my brilliant baby cousin, and the author of an excellent book "On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the 20th Century."
---
Hope this helps!
I'm glad Ms. Ifill mentioned the appalling Bush v. Gore decision, and raised its worst aspect: the declaration that it would not be applied to any other case. Precedent is the key restriction on judicial power, the fact that what judges say today can return to haunt them tomorrow. Without precedent judges can do whatever they want, whenever they feel like it. That would truly be judicial tyranny!
i know that this discussion is about the 14th amendment. however, my question is relevant eventhough it's about the 13th. from the way that it's written, it seems that the 13th amendment legalizes slavery in the same breath that it makes it illegal. it basically says that anyone convicted of a crime is a slave. am i understanding it wrong?
What is the underlying motivation of the movement to take away citizenship from children born to undocumented workers?
What happens to children who become stateless?
I would like to know if the XIV Amendment applies to the Federal Government, as well as to the States. Section 1 states in part: "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Meanwhile, Federal Law forbids the circumcision of underage girls, whereas about one million infant boys face genital mutilation every year. This seems to be patently discriminatory.
marlee32 on January 10, 2011 @ 11:45 am asked: "it seems that the 13th amendment legalizes slavery in the same breath that it makes it illegal. it basically says that anyone convicted of a crime is a slave. am i understanding it wrong?"
The actual text says "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime . . . ." The text's purpose is not to "legalize slavery" (it had already been legal before the Amendment). The purpose was to prevent convicted criminals from claiming their "involuntary servitude" (incarceration) violated the Amendment.
Is it known which political person or group first used the phrase "birth tourism"?
That term is one of the most insulting and ugly-sounding terms thrown around in politcs today. It seems that we have political leaders willing to throw some of our most basic rights under the bus, in a feeble attempt to address current problems. It seems that this conversation exisits now because the US doesn't want more Mexican immigrants creating a foothold in the US (even though parts of this country were once Mexico). During the building boom of the 90's-2000's, this wasn't a priority due to the need of the cheap labor. Now that jobs are scarce, and the drug highway is now coming through our land boarder rather than the planes of yesterday, it is being questioned. Creating a void of citizenship is not the answer to these problems. And the people bringing this up are not saying what they would do if the child was from a wealthy european family.
It seems we confuse extreme views with extreme belligerence. I come from a family which consists of laissez faire capitalist, bona fide Marxist, a Christian who interpreted the bible literally and firm atheist and various other views. About these issues we did not shout or threaten. We knew that everyone wanted the best for society and that our own views would loose any credibility if we got in anyone else's face with them
Rood Andersson on January 10, 2011 @ 11:52 am asked: "I would like to know if the XIV Amendment applies to the Federal Government, as well as to the States."
The answer is no. The Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of Equal Protection expressly applies only to the States. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause contains an element of equal protection, so the legal issue is not clear-cut.
What is clear is that you are confabulating two entirely different surgical procedures. Equating male circumcision to female circumcision makes about as much sense as equating a tonsillectomy with an amputation: after all, both involve removing a part of the body. The "harm" done to males is minor at worst, and the advocates for banning male circumcision have (to put it mildly) precious little proof of such harm. The same cannot be said about female circumcision - the harm there is well documented.
Besides, I question whether the Federal law is constitutional, at least where the First Amendment may be concerned. (Though the legal issue is hardly clear-cut here either.)
There are thousands of women who enter this country illegally and have children in hospitals that are paid for by the taxes of citizens of this country. Having the child here makes deportation of this illegal alien next to impossible (hence the term anchor…). This puts a strain on the resources of any state that shares a border with Mexico (which is why this is actually an issue). I challenge any of your guests (note: none of them represent my point of view) to spend ONE DAY at the county hospital in Arizona. They will witness many, many illegal aliens on a daily basis come into the hospital, with no documentation or ability to speak English, having babies who are automatically citizens. According to our Constitution the baby is an American Citizen but the mother IS NOT. Imagine if the border patrol was at the hospital to separate them from their child (an American citizen) and deport them back to their country while their child stays in his/her country. THIS ISSUE WOULD RESOLVE ITSELF. The idea of this sounds so inhumane and obviously it would never happen, but that is why the problem has gotten so completely out of hand. Many wonderful people file correct documentation and wait to become an American citizen and be a part of our country in a respectful way. These are the people that I want my country to be made up of; those who would secure their own citizenship before bringing a child into the world. I do not want people here who would come illegally into this country and have a child. To me that is inhumane.
angel1134 on January 10, 2011 @ 12:19 pm wrote: "There are thousands of women who enter this country illegally and have children . . . . Having the child here makes deportation of this illegal alien next to impossible (hence the term anchor…)."
False, False, FALSE!
Do a little research, angel. There are thousands of cases where aliens facing deportation tried to argue that they couldn't be deported because that would involve deporting their children who were born here (and thus are citizens). In every case the courts reply: the child can stay, you are the only one being deported.
"Anchor babies" are a myth and a lie!
Since there are a few fair, intelligent liberals out there, why would you have Ms Ifill on your show? When a phone question came through about Obama's birthplace, and hence his ability to be pres, she played the race card. There are legitimate questions that have been asked, and he has resorted to an unprecendented lack of disclosure about his birth, initial and subsequent education. Despite this, she dismissed such inquiries as being racially biased rather than giving a valid response. Apparently it never occurred to her that blacks, whites, etc., are all subject to the law, and although those questions are surely being asked entirely by republicans, that sure doesn't make it racial. Further, does she not remember that there was a legitimate, but crazy, issue relating to McCain's ability to run for pres because he was born outside the U.S.; that problem was formally resolved by Congress. Oh, Ms. Ifill, you may not have known, but McCain is white, but the issue was raised nevertheless.
Besides Ms Ifill's inability to provide a legitimate answer to a legitimate question, and thought it worth promoting racial tension in the process, this (McCain) also should remind everyone of how fallible the constitution is. It is crazy that tea party members or anyone else make it the center of their ideology. It sanctioned slavery, women not having the right to vote or have full property rights, etc. And they never thought to allow a child born overseas of U.S. citizens (much less there on active government service) to serve as pres. There are a few other weaknesses - duh - as in current amendments and others that should have amendments. Admittedly, the constitution has legal significance, but morally, and as defense of ANY issue, it is garbage.
This usually only applies to fathers...do a little research yourself!
Your economy of words would be admirable if your sentence made sense. Why not try again to explain what "applies to fathers" means. The following may help or hender you:
Some if not all states have laws that automatically increase the penalty of crimes committed with a gun. How can a person here illegally - or even here legally on a visa, etc. - be capable of delivering a U.S. citizen? It makes no sense. The result of a crime must be criminal, so if the mother is not a citizen then neither should be her child.
How could the constitution be used to justify citizenship of a child born here of an illegal alien, when it did not create citizenship of a child (John McCain) born overseas of U.S. citizens with one serving as active duty military? How could a document which couldn't envision the concept of an "illegal alien" have been expected to address their children? Let's get real - and logical !
Thank you, linotype operator ... it's nice to know that genital mutilation is not genital mutilation, depending on the sex of the person being brutally attacked with a naked knife, but if you think that the harm done to a newborn infant boy, an infant who screams in pain, throws up, and goes into shock, as the only way to protest the pain of having someone amputate the most sensitive tissue on his body, is "minor" harm, perhaps you should volunteer to assist in the procedure until you, too, scream, throw up, and go into shock at the awful effect genital mutilation has upon the innocent.
Or is asking someone who hides his identity behind the anonymity of the nonsense phrase Etaoin Shrdlu to feel empathy for the suffering of the innocent too much to expect.
Is it really that difficult to post on the correct subject? Regardless, the foreskin is not the most sensitive part of our anatomy. Now, a few inches down is another matter....
The Constitution is written in plain readable language. Please interpret it yourself.
The iGoogle Do Good Gauge Constitution Randomizer
The Do Good Gauge Constitution Summary
For centuries before the constitution, to include the bible, and for many decades afterwards, the masculine form "man" was universally used in many cultures to indicate everyone, presumably because women were at the time deemed to be inferior. It is sometimes used today in the same way, albeit without, presumably, any such denigration intended. Relying on gender specific nouns and pronouns from yrs ago for any purpose, other than to prove historical gender discrimination, is a real hoot. It is time for YOU to do some intelligent interpretation/analysis.
angel1134 on January 10, 2011 @ 6:38 pm wrote: "This usually only applies to fathers...do a little research yourself!"
I notice you haven't bothered to produce a single case to support your FALSE claims, so allow me to provide refutation. In INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U.S. 139 (1981), both the father and the mother were ordered deported, despite the fact that they had two (count 'em, two) American born children.
Also note: this case involved a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act which specifically allows the U.S. Attorney General (as head of the Immigration Service) to suspend deportation which would "result in extreme hardship to the alien or to his . . . child, who is a citizen of the United States . . . ." But, since merely deporting the child did not constitute "extreme hardship" the deportation could proceed.
(You can find a copy of the decision at http://supreme.justia.com/us/450/139/case.html)
Any more incorrect Comments you care to offer?
Oh, and according to a report issued last year, the immigrant parents of more than 88,000 U.S. citizen children have been deported in the last decade. Interestingly, these were legal immigrants who were deported for "minor criminal convictions", including drunk driving. Guess their "anchors" must have slipped!
http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/apr/01/local/la-me-deport1-2010apr01
Jack Facts on January 10, 2011 @ 5:28 pm wrote: “Admittedly, the constitution has legal significance, but morally, and as defense of ANY issue, it is garbage.
PART ONE
The only “garbage” I see being spewed is hurled by you and other “birthers”. There are no “legitimate questions that have been asked”, only phony questions that have been repeated ad nauseum (employing the “Big Lie” technique). Obama produced all the documentation legally required: his valid, official, and officially certified, Hawaiian birth certificate.
Oh, the birthers cry, but it’s only the “short form” certificate, forgetting that this is all that’s legally required. Forgetting as well that this is the only thing the vast majority of Americans could produce to prove their birth (the long form having been abandoned sometime in the 1950’s and 60’s, depending on the state in question). I bet you couldn’t produce anything else. I know I can’t. Care to call the Immigration Service and report me?
You also ignore the contemporaneous newspaper announcements of his birth in Hawaii.
So, are you saying there’s this vast conspiracy, including the then Republican Governor of Hawaii, the Hawaiian Department of State (custodian of birth records), and the local newspapers? Or, maybe Obama’s parents, with amazing forethought, had someone go to Hawaii and post fake birth announcements, since they knew their son would one day run for President? Or maybe someone borrowed Dr. Who’s TARDIS and traveled back in time to create all these documents.
Adding to all this the fact that the birthers have several times trumpeted the “discovery” of documents they claim showed Obama’s foreign birth, only to have said papers proven to be forgeries, I think the “questions” they raise deserve nothing but scorn!
TO BE CONTINUED