New US constitutional convention: what would (or should) get changed?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=thirdwarning]
Adding the part about being born to legal residents or citizens negates the situation of “anchor babies” where the child is a citizen even though the mother was an illegal immigrant at the time of the birth. Theoretically it means that there would be less incentive for women to come across the border to give birth. And it means that illegals could be deported without having to worry about their citizen children being left behind.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, I see. But that would make the words “or naturalized” meaningless, don’t you think? :stuck_out_tongue:

22

Personally, I’m all for keeping that clause the way it is. Hispanic immigration strengthens our economy, overcomes the birth dearth among citizens of longer pedigree, and keeps the Social Security trust fund in good shape, actuarily speaking. To the extent that that clause is part of what makes all that work, keep it in!

And as a left-leaning individual, I’m delighted by the right-wing’s war against brown people. If you don’t want 'em in your party, we’ll take 'em in ours. :slight_smile:

23

Anyway, a Constitutional convention is a big so-what. As has been pointed out, any changes to the Constitution passed by such a convention would still have to be ratified by 38 states; all you’ve bypassed is Congress.

24

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Personally, I’m all for keeping that clause the way it is. Hispanic immigration strengthens our economy, overcomes the birth dearth among citizens of longer pedigree, and keeps the Social Security trust fund in good shape, actuarily speaking. To the extent that that clause is part of what makes all that work, keep it in!

And as a left-leaning individual, I’m delighted by the right-wing’s war against brown people. If you don’t want 'em in your party, we’ll take 'em in ours. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

They don’t get to be in any party. They can’t vote. They are not citizens. They have no civil rights. If you’re planning to bribe them with 18 years of free goods and services that they don’t deserve and have no right to in order to get the allegiance of the anchor babies when they grow to adulthood (facepalm No! No way! The left could never be planning on that! shocked, shocked I tell you), then your side of the spectrum is even more morally bankrupt than it appears.
ETA: Let me be clear that I am talking about Illegal immigrants here. ALL illegal immigrants. I ignored RTF’s tired and typical attempt to make it a race issue about “brown people”, as should everyone.

25

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Personally, I’m all for keeping that clause the way it is. Hispanic immigration strengthens our economy, overcomes the birth dearth among citizens of longer pedigree, and keeps the Social Security trust fund in good shape, actuarily speaking. To the extent that that clause is part of what makes all that work, keep it in!

And as a left-leaning individual, I’m delighted by the right-wing’s war against brown people. If you don’t want 'em in your party, we’ll take 'em in ours. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Nice debate. You make it about color.
I am neither a righty nor a lefty. But the brown people line is pretty insulting.

26

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
They are not citizens. They have no civil rights.
[/QUOTE]

Eh? Aliens in the U.S., even illegals, have all the same legal and civil rights you have, except for (1) voting and (2) unconditional right of residence on U.S. soil.

27

I’d want the 2nd amendment modified to make it both weaker and stronger.
Weaker - I’d avoid any language about specific weapons or devices. No particular type of weapon, such as guns, would necessarily be protected. (Although as a practical matter, I’d want guns that are currently legal to remain legal.)
Stronger - I’d change the amendment to state that every citizen has the right to self-defense, including using lethal force if necessary.

28

Oh, nice, Dave.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe RT is referring to the anticipated 102 million hispanic americans (predicted by the census for 2050…no foolin’) and their concern for their non-legal cousins and suchlike.

While often trending right on social issues (abortion, religion, and such) this group is very strongly influenced politically by both parties respective attitudes toward illegal immigration. The right’s effort to demonize illegal immigrant, however one might feel on the subject, is clearly having the effect of driving this enormous cohort of voters away from the Republican Party.

In short, this is a large voter bloc that is currently ‘in play’ and Republican’s aren’t making the best effort in the world to court them. That may (MAY) influence several millions of voters to commit to the Democratic Party over the next several decades.

29

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Eh? Aliens in the U.S., even illegals, have all the same legal and civil rights you have, except for (1) voting and (2) unconditional right of residence on U.S. soil.
[/QUOTE]

Ahh, once again, the big lie of the pro illegal immigration side.

Merriam-Webster:

: the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress
American Heritage:

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.
MSN Encarta:

rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law. These rights as conceived in U.S. law are set forth in the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and in some congressional acts.
Oxford English Dictionary:
the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.

Shall I go on? By definition civil rights belong to citizens. I know that there has been a concentrated effort by the pro illegal immigration folks to water this down, to change it, frankly, in many cases, to just ignore this inconvenient truth altogether, but willful misuse or ignorance does not change the facts: Illegal aliens do not have civil rights, nor should they.

30

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Ahh, once again, the big lie of the pro illegal immigration side.

Merriam-Webster:

: the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress
American Heritage:

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.
MSN Encarta:

rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law. These rights as conceived in U.S. law are set forth in the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and in some congressional acts.
Oxford English Dictionary:
the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.

Shall I go on? By definition civil rights belong to citizens. I know that there has been a concentrated effort by the pro illegal immigration folks to water this down, to change it, frankly, in many cases, to just ignore this inconvenient truth altogether, but willful misuse or ignorance does not change the facts: Illegal aliens do not have civil rights, nor should they.
[/QUOTE]

Still not clear what you’re talking about. No court has yet ruled that anyone can be denied benefit of anything in the BoR – freedom of speech, religious freedom, right to due process of law and trial by jury – because of noncitizen status.

Or is that something you’re proposing to change, in the new constitution?

Or perhaps you’re using a narrower definition of “civil rights” that encompasses only voting/officeholding/political-participation rights, which noncitizens certainly do not enjoy (except as provided by the First Amendment to a limited extent).

31

[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
Oh, nice, Dave.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe RT is referring to the anticipated 102 million hispanic americans (predicted by the census for 2050…no foolin’) and their concern for their non-legal cousins and suchlike.

While often trending right on social issues (abortion, religion, and such) this group is very strongly influenced politically by both parties respective attitudes toward illegal immigration. The right’s effort to demonize illegal immigrant, however one might feel on the subject, is clearly having the effect of driving this enormous cohort of voters away from the Republican Party.

In short, this is a large voter bloc that is currently ‘in play’ and Republican’s aren’t making the best effort in the world to court them. That may (MAY) influence several millions of voters to commit to the Democratic Party over the next several decades.
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t expect such a nuanced thought process JC, this is RTF that we’re talking about, but I don’t agree. Admittedly this is anecdotal, but I work every day with small business owners, and a good portion of them are Hispanic, like all legal immigrants, many of them started their own businesses. I can not think of one single instance(seriously, not once in ten years have I heard ANY of them say that illegals should be granted citizenship. No fooling) have any of these legal immigrants expressed anything but contempt for illegal immigrants. I’ve been doing this for 10 years, I meet at least a half dozen Hispanic clients a month, and I’ve never heard any differently from any of them, even those of them who were using illegal aliens as labor. Proves nothing, I know, but it’s happened often enough for long enough that I have a hard time believing that it’s Hispanic business owners in Maryland taht are the aberration. Given that, what’s left are the citizens who got their citizenship VIA birth and whose parents are illegals. The determined effort by the left to shovel pork at these people that they don’t deserve and have no right to (see previous post) is nothing more than an attempt to buy the votes of their children as they come of age.

32

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
They don’t get to be in any party. They can’t vote. They are not citizens. They have no civil rights.
[/QUOTE]

This has to be carefully qualified. If by “civil” rights you mean “the rights appurtaning to citizenship,” then you are correct, but then, there are very few such rights found to exist in this country under our Constitution. Voting, as you identified, free travel from state to state, one or two others.

If by “civil” rights you mean those rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, et al., then you are incorrect as a matter of both wording and law. The wording of those amendments does not limit them to citizens, nor has the Supreme Court of the United States so limited them. There are vastly more rights, by comparison, arising out of the concept of “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process clause” than have been found to be incident to citizenship in this country.

33

Not to junior mod, or anything, but thanks for the huge hijack. Can we please tie our arguments to the subject at hand, namely the “new” constitution.

What?!? You really want to split our economy into 50 smaller ones? California would be fine, probably, but North Dakota, not so much.

34

No, just the way it has been applied to such issues as people growing things in their backyard.

No, I’m not talking drugs, specifically, just that if I decided to… I don’t know, sell lemonade at my driveway, it could be considered related to that clause. I’d like it reworded so that it’s actually about interstate commerce and not about tertiary and quadrinary emanations thereof.

I’d also like to do something about how the Feds pressure states with interstate highway funds, eg, raising minimum ages and so on.

I’d also like the Full Faith and Credit sort of thing spelled out more fully. If I get married in Texas, I damn well better also be married in Ohio.

35

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
If I get married in Texas, I damn well better also be married in Ohio.
[/QUOTE]

Careful. I’m fairly certain bigamy is illegal in both states.

36

You can be married in Massachusetts (or Mexico or Spain) and not be legally married in Texas.

37

Admittedly, many of these have already been mentioned:

  • Require all laws to have an expiration date within, call it 25 years (give or take a few), from their time of enactment.

  • Return Senatoral elections to the state legislatures, so that state governments have a voice in the Union of states.

  • Add some counterweight to the tendency of government spending and taxation to ratchet upward (e.g. a supermajoity requirement for tax increases).

  • Replace the vague “privileges and immunities” clause of the 14th Amendment with an explicit guarantee that specifically protected rights may not be infringed by state governments as well as the federal one.

A few items of clarification:

  • Drop the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment; it enables too obfuscation of its essential point (the RKBA). While it’s useful to have guidance as to what “arms” does and does not include (as per the Miller ruling interpretation of the militia clause), there’s no reason it can’t simply be left inferred that, no, you don’t get to have a private nerve gas canister (in the same way that, for example, it’s inferred that the First Amendment doesn’t protect your right to dash off an e-mail to some Iraqi insurgent group with a hot tip about an upcoming American convoy).

  • Replace the “limited terms” language in the Patents and Copyrights clause with a hard number (e.g. 50 years, give or take a few decades) so that limited actually means “limited”.

38

I hope it doesn’t happen and if it did who knows what would happen. Perhaps the American Taliban would make Christianity the official state religion, or require Christian prayers to be read in school, or make abortion explicitly illegal, or euthenasia, etc.

What should happen:

  • Explicitly grant the right to abortions in the first trimester
  • Grant homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexuals
  • Allow states and local agencies to regulate firearms in any manner they see fit
  • Require that presidents and vice presidents be elected separately
  • Require paper ballots for all elections
  • Explicitly state that presidential signing statements have no legal status whatsoever
  • Ban the designated hitter
39

[QUOTE=Steve MB]

  • Require all laws to have an expiration date within, call it 25 years (give or take a few), from their time of enactment.

[/quote]

I have a problem with this one. There are some laws that are permanent and are so for a very good reason. The law against murder springs to mind. I’d hate to find a killer going free because someone either forgot to bring it up for renewal or, worse, because the law is being held “hostage” as a political pawn for some other goal (i.e. “I’ll throw my support behind the renewal of the no murder law in exchange for help on the budget…”).

Zev Steinhardt

40

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
They don’t get to be in any party. They can’t vote. They are not citizens. They have no civil rights.
[/QUOTE]
We ARE talking about the first section of the 14th Amendment, right?

The one that begins, “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.”

Just checking.