The American Spectator

Eric Cartman| 8.9.10 @ 6:46AM

Two things:

There is no need to deport twelve million illegals - stop feeding the stays and they will go away.

Waiting on the GOP to quit playing games like this will only lead to Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Vote the RINOs out with the traitorous Democrats. Get serious or get screwed.

gyspsy| 8.9.10 @ 8:37AM

Then the RINOs need to step aside before we the people run them over. Go away Lindsey Gramnesty, and we will forget that you were EVER our countryman

megapotamus| 8.9.10 @ 12:41PM

But this is the point of the Graham move; it is an effort to muddy any bright line that could be drawn between the RINOs and principle-driven alternatives. Graham's support does make one suspicious of the ammendment drive but what is the alternative? The only other measure I can see is awarding citizenship to the babies under the 14th but denying residency to the parents. Is this a possibility? Doesn't seem like it. Are border hospitals going to deport Mexican citizens in labor? Not likely. Like so much that plagues us today, the 14th was a Reconstruction tool opportunistically mutated to award bennies to other groups never impacted by American slavery. Black Americans should be the natural allies of those seeking to keep these policies to their original purposes. Maybe once they realize they are competing with illegals for a limited piece of a limited pie they will understand that.

anorm| 8.10.10 @ 10:03AM

http://www.snopes.com/politics.....rkland.asp

Check out the stats for Dallas' county hospital. We are no way a "border town" and this is no border town hospital. If this doesn't scare ya, nothing will.

Occam's Tool| 8.10.10 @ 5:00PM

Scarier still: Check out the Los Angeles Health Department website: 1/2 of all babies born in LA County are born to "undocumented mothers." Four percent of ALL babies born in the US are born in LA County.

Alan Brooks| 8.9.10 @ 9:04AM

Americans should be told of how illegals are perhaps even more of a threat to America than al Qaeda.

gypsy| 8.9.10 @ 9:13AM

simple: theres lots more of them. Either way, trash is trash, criminals are criminals are criminals, and we the people have the right to defend ourselves. And we will, by any means necessary

arlo price| 8.9.10 @ 10:35AM

Enforce current law. Seal the border. Another 'law' governing illegal entry is not needed.

Crack down on employers who hire illegals. Illegals work for a contractor (builder, bricklayer sheet-rocker, roofer whatever) who pays them as a sub-contractor so that taxes are not withheld, the illegal gets a 1099 instead of a w-2. Two years later, the illegal has learned the business and now has his own crew of illegals and none of them pay taxes. The result of which is that legitimate contractors go out of business and the tax base is erroded.

Illegals have fraudulently obtained residence and wealth, prosecute them and confiscate their wealth as is done with other criminal activities.

Guaranteed that if illegal alien possessions were confiscated and sold at public auction, you would see a stampede of illegals headed BACK to Mexico and government coffers would swell.

Getting to Square One| 8.9.10 @ 10:48PM

You do realize that simply posting that here will have little effect, right? On this issue, pols will do whatever they think they can get away with, your grand plans notwithstanding.

The first thing we need to do is to get to the point where pols will take this issue seriously. Then we can have a real debate, without Graham's cutesy tricks.

If you want to get to that point - and you're willing to do actual work - see my name's link. I've been pushing that highly effective plan for almost three and a half years and I've gotten almost zero help with it. If anyone wants to actually work to resolve this issue, promote that plan.

Neil Goldberg| 8.10.10 @ 2:39AM

OAny candidate will do, so long as they are republican right? Putting party before genuine devotion and greatness, graced with courage,
is so short-sighted, even selfish, when a One In A Million Candidate presents himself, and there is neither the vision, nor the Spirit to allow him to give his all and to preserve, faithfully, one vital seat for Freedom.
Discover Neil Brian Goldberg, quick, America's David. www.GoldbergOverBoxer.com - Contribute!

Achilles Toejam| 8.12.10 @ 6:57PM

Wow, you mean to tell me that the Republicans have actually discovered the Constitution? We need an amendment for this in an amendment for that such grandiose plans they propose as they ask us to trust them one more time, "just give us power one more time we won't disappoint you."
Sorry but IMO we haven't got time to gamble on that and frankly I just don't trust them! We don't need constitutional conventions or amendments to the Constitution what we need is to merely define documents by The Original Intent of the people who wrote them it's plain and simple, take the 14th amendment the so-called birthright citizenship authored by Sen. Jacob Howard if you read what he and others said during the debates of that amendment you would know it does not apply to foreign nationals and especially to illegal aliens, the phrase "Under the Jurisdiction Thereof" has nothing to do with following our laws. Activist courts adhering to judicial supremacy have taken upon themselves to make it up as they go and that must end.

ananair| 8.15.10 @ 12:55PM

Considering recent actions by Republicans seems to me they have a conspiracy to junk the Constitution altogether, piece by piece.
They do not directly attack Amendment XIII, abolition of slavery, ... the main reason they oppose President Obama is because he is half BLACK , they and the teabaggers are racially prejudiced but if anyone calls them racist!!!! the response would be, who, MOI??? They are racially opposed to brown skinned Latinos, so let's amend XIV. More recently they have shown their disdain for Amendment I, which states "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"
So all the hullabaloo to prohibit the building of a cultural centre near the 911 site is not the equivalent of PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION?
Would there be the same whipped up opposition to building a JEWISH SYNAGOGUE or a CHRISTIAN CHURCH in that same location?world population includes
1.3 billion Muslims, 1+? billion Christians, 14 million Jews
The only amendment that is truly sacred is Amendment II "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"
How many NRA members belong to any "WELL REGULATED MILITIA' perhaps only the skin head NeoNazis of the Aryan Nation. Hitler and his Fascist goons all of whom bore arms murdered 6 million Jews and uncounted other inferior people to preserve the purity of his ARYAN nation, receiving much financial aid from major corporations. Republican initiatives
amendment I-- against the religion of Islam and (mostly non white) Muslims
amendment XIII- against black slaves
amendment XIV - against brown skinned latinos
What's the common denominator?

t.m.homer| 8.20.10 @ 2:42AM

READ Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roos and Contemporary Threat. Islam is not a religion, nor a cult...it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. It has religious components which is a beard for all of the other components: legal, political,economic, social and military. Islamization begins when thee are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to other citizens as is the case in the U.S. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century. We now have two foxes guarding the hen house: Obama & Janet Napolitano appointed Arif Alikhan, as an Asst. Secy and Kareem Shora, as member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Both are devout Muslims. Do you feel safer already? Muslims cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans because of their allegiances. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand, and we don't need them to build on or near hallowed ground. This is an affront to Americans and Christians who lost their lives there. Islam does not allow freedom of religion and expression; democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic, and Obama is leading the way in this country...is is both dictatorial and autocratic and by his own admission, a Muslim.
Read the book. You are misinformed at present.

Darin| 8.9.10 @ 7:09AM

Task one. Seal the border!

This goes back to the first amnesty granted by Reagan in the mid 80's. The promise was that we'd grant amnesty then seal the border and fix immigration. The amnesty happened, but the second two never did.

When you have a problem with the neighbors dog getting into your yard through a hole in your fence, before you do anything else, you fix the fence.

gypsy| 8.9.10 @ 8:36AM

and then the next time the dog crosses over, you shoot the damned dog. And when your neighbor tries to make a speech on your front lawn about how "mean spirited" you are -- a la President Calderon before Congress-- he gets a smackdown for being a mouthy, irresponsible hypocrite

Peter| 8.9.10 @ 7:14AM

Stiff sanctions on employers who hire illegal and, yes, a pro-active deportation policy. That's the immigrration reform needed.

gyspy| 8.9.10 @ 8:33AM

we also need to prosecute everyone -- politicians,bureaucrats, judges,employers-- who turn a blind eye to the law when it involves Americans being overrun by the alien trash of the hemisphere. As long as the worst thing that happens to these traitors is that they get booted out of office, or forced into early "retirement" or forced to pay some pittance fine, then the problem will continue. When Lindsey Gramnesty has to share a cell with Judge Bolton and the Teleprompter in Chief, and the license plate making shop where they work is run by the Mexican Mafia,then we'll start seeing some damned progress, tutto pronto

Shamus| 8.9.10 @ 7:35AM

The contention that we can't manage the illegal immigration problem is simply wrong. The fact is that we haven't made any real effort to solve it.

During the 50's we deported a million illegal immigrants each year. If we made this level of effort we could have matters under control in a matter of years.

The problem is essentially a political one. The Democrats want Mexicans to support them at the polls. This involves breaking immigration laws and perpetrating voter fraud, but this has been part of the Democrat's play book for decades, and they're content to do it. Republicans gave companies cheap labor in return for campaign donations, and this worked while the economy expanded. Today, the broad public is worried about Mexicans taking their jobs and about increased tax burdens to pay for social welfare programs. These are real concerns that need to be addressed, and if our political establishment refuses to address them, they will pay a price.

Tom| 8.9.10 @ 8:15AM

Can you provide a citation your 1 million illegal immigrants deported per year during the 50's?

From Politifact "The official total from 1930 to 1960 is 477,000 formal removals and 5.4 million who left voluntarily. That 30-year period includes the entirety of Roosevelt's terms, not just the three presidents cited in the e-mail. Added together, the number who left would be just under 6 million -- less than half of what the e-mail claims -- and about 90 percent of them were not deported. It would be too generous to call the e-mail Barely True. We rate it False."

Chalkdust| 8.9.10 @ 8:49AM

Tom:
Would you rate it true that deportations in 1950's occurred?

Would you rate it true that for every illegal border jumper officially deported, 11.32 illegals left voluntarily?

Would you rate it true the entire operation was successfully completed?

Tom| 8.9.10 @ 9:23AM

Chalk,
What exactly is your point?

Of course deportations happened. However, in 2009 389,834 illegals were deported, just shy of 80,000 less than were deported during a 30 year period. The problem is not deportations, the problem is entries. If the border was reasonably secure ICE would be perfectly capable of getting a handle on the illegal population, through attrition and active deportation. But currently it is like pailing out a boat with a bucket full of holes, no matter how hard you work water just keeps poring in.

Shamus| 8.9.10 @ 10:44AM

A quick look on Wikipedia turns up a program called operation Wetback which was mounted in 1954. The INS estimate for operations in Texas were 80,000 taken into custody and 600,000 left the state of their own accord. It's probably hard to get an accurate reading on numbers, but my basic point is that there was a real effort to address this issue in the 50's and there is none now. And when a real effort was made, there were real results. It should be possible to come up with a reasonable policy that would serve the interests of the US and Mexico. But this won't happen until US political parties abandon immigration as a wedge issue.

Tom| 8.9.10 @ 12:23PM

I was aware of operation wetback, the numbers are sketchy. Beyond that there is no way we could undergo such an operation now. We are not talking about workplace enforcement, or checking papers of those stopped legitimately by police, wetback was active sweeps of Mexican neighborhoods to sweep up illegals.

I think we could do far more in the interior of the country, especially targetting businesses, the illegal situation will not be solved solely or even primarily through enforcement. We need to shut the damn valve off.

Ed| 8.10.10 @ 1:39AM

What always gets me about Operation Wetback is the fact that it accomplished so much without the computer technology, etc., that we have today. The claim that we cannot do the same today is just so much B.S. For every million that we deported, a few million more would self-deport. I offer as evidence the large number that have self-deported from here in AZ just on the possibility that SB1070 would be enforced.

darcy| 8.9.10 @ 6:54PM

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/.....deporters/

"Officially, just over 2.1 million were recorded as having been deported or having departed under threat of deportation," [during Operation Wetback].

coal carrier| 8.9.10 @ 9:09AM

Sorry Shamas.
I am tired of “the Democrats want the votes and the Republicans want cheap labor.” This is an offshoot of the old adage “ Republicans are for big business and the Democrats are for the little guy. Maybe in the 1930’s but not now. There are just as many Democrat business owners as there are Republican. When big business wants cheap labor they go directly to the source – Mexico, Malaysia & China. They don’t necessarily have to hope for a liquid boarder.

The bottom line is this; it’s for the politicians. It’s just another voting block so they can be reelected. Deport all of the people that are here illegally, fine the companies that have illegal employees on their staff and fire the pro-amnesty politicians. Then elect representatives that will seal the boarder and enforce the existing immigration laws.
Problem solved.

darcy| 8.9.10 @ 7:01PM

The bottom line is that for the Left the influx of illegal aliens into America destabalizes and balkanizes the nation, the better for the Left to defeat and bring to heel those remaining Americans who still hold to a vision of America rooted in Founding principles.

Yet another Gathering Storm.

Ed F| 8.10.10 @ 1:42AM

Dems are practically salivating at the thought of securing a fresh voting block of "victims" to manipulate with the promise of free stuff every election cycle

Grzmlyk| 8.9.10 @ 9:13AM

First of all, we should put to rest the canard about having to deport 12 million - or 20 million, whatever the number is - illegals.

Truth is, if we make it inhospitable for them to be here - crack down on employers, reverse the trend of giving them special benefits like cheap tuition and the full panoply of welfare lucre - many will go home of their own volition.

And if we put our minds to it, we could deport the rest without breaking a sweat. After all, as Obama himself said, if we could put a man on the moon . . .

Then, too, as our economy deteriorates - and if you look around, you'll see more and more mainstream economists, including some in the administration, beginning to look awfully nervous - they'll go home. In 20 years, hell, Americans may be going to Mexico to look for work. And you can bet the Mexican government will be only to happy to build a fence and, if that doesn't work, shoot us as we pour over.

I love our political class: They allow unions, taxes and regulations to jack up the cost of producing every product and service in the US, and then that same political class looks the other way as cheap labor floods the market - thus proving, or so you'd think, that the unions, taxes and regulations that have brought our economy to a screeching halt are unsustainable.

But that's our government: instead of stanching the arterial bleeding, they're looking for a bigger bucket to catch the blood.

CharlieEcho| 8.9.10 @ 7:39AM

A good article. It makes the point well. If the RNC expects donations from this house they are going to stiffen their backs. I haven't seen anything to impress me yet. Living in Illinois I have little recourse this election cycle. I'll have to wait until 2012 and hope the GOP gets their ship together.

Curly Smith| 8.9.10 @ 7:43AM

If the Mexican Government can expel 14 million legal citizens then surely we can expel 14 million illegal Mexican immigrants. Or do the cojones stop at the Rio Grande?

gypsy| 8.9.10 @ 8:24AM

Certainly there no cojones on display at the White House, at least not when it comes to protecting the American people or defending the Constitution.

Btw, why the hell is it always patriots and conservatives who have to get AMENDMENTS passed to make the Constitution mean what the Founders actually intended, when traitors and ObamaNazis can just find a tame judge who makes a ruling,and then we all roll over and play dead? I say that its high time we stopped talking about impeaching Presidents, and we started impeaching judges when they wipe their ass with the Constitution.

Power to we the people

megapotamus| 8.9.10 @ 12:55PM

A side note here: Obama has a nasty critter sneaking up on him. This notion that he is immasculation incarnate is something he should be countering, and maybe he is, but a general impression like this that undermines his identity as a leader will put him underwater electorally as much as any real "issue". Palin probably started this, saying O did not have the cojones of one Jan Brewer (so obviously this is a metaphorical castration, Maggie Thatcher famously had tremendous balls). Limbaugh perhaps cribbed from that conservative version of Journolist we hear so much about, stating that Barack was bringing some much needed esgtrogen to The View. You will find this same derogation among the Hard Left, being oh so dissappointed in O's moderation. This developing meme therefore has a life independent of ideology and it works as an explanation for every shortcoming of the administration. Barack of course gives good reason to doubt his testicular fortitude, as with the Sherrod Blackberry Massacre and other double-blind fakery that attempts to insulate him from the political downside of whatever decision is in question. And with Michelle jetting off on Barry's birthday we see there are ample reasons for that vast apolitical scrum constituting most of the country to surmise the same way. Personally, I don't find this much of a laughing matter. An American President widely seen as weak invites aggression abroad and may require some bold Wag-the-Dog stunt to mitigate it.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 8.9.10 @ 10:45AM

I respectfully disagree. the incompetent won is not afraid to put his balls on display at any time. He is frequently seen on the golf course hacking at dimpled white spheres weighing no more than 1.620 ounces with a diameter not less than 1.680 inches. Recently he was seen in public with ribbed inflatable orange leather spheres less than 30 inches around. More recently he met with a group of men who have demonstrated much skill using a ball made similarly to the almost 30 inch ball except that it is stretched out in what can be described as a pointy prolate spheroid about 11 inches long and 22 inches around at the waist.

I would also like to point out the irony of the doofus from the Palmetto State, where my clan lies buried, proposing to amend the very Constitution he swore to preserve, protect and defend just after he trampled that Founding Document in the slime deep swill of the U.S. Capitol by heeding his golden calf’s cry to board the keggan train to Club Beelzebub.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
Don’t Tread on Me.
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“We have a great bunch of outside shooters. Unfortunately, all our games are played indoors.” - Weldon Drew
Only 895 days to go.

jrjr| 8.9.10 @ 5:00PM

Would you want to lose 14 million votes? One more - no more free health care, including emergencies. Think that might change things?

Jack Kinch(1uncle)| 8.13.10 @ 2:13PM

These unwanteds are future demo votes to be bought with amnesty like welfare bought the uneducated vote.
Heavily fine the employers who hire them.

Petronius| 8.9.10 @ 8:17AM

Allowing the judges to dictate is such a convenient way of weaseling out of one's legislative responsibility and flummox those irritating voters who expect and demand that the government be run the same way ordinary people are required to run their households and conduct their lives for so long, that it's in their DNA. Inside the beltway that's Does Not Apply.

Chalkdust| 8.9.10 @ 8:28AM

The article makes the point. It's time to elect members to the legislative branch of government that will insist the other two branches of government do their jobs according to existing laws or (my opinion) reap the whirlwind of the righteous, bloody hand of patriots.

Louis Jenkins| 8.9.10 @ 8:43AM

"What do conservatives have to show for the Republicans' election-year promises to support the human life amendment and the federal marriage amendment?"

Nothing! Absolutely nothing. This is what's wrong with the GOP. They can't get anything right. And they're the only "other" game in town. We need to house clean this Nov. and put in some real conservative candidates, not just those associated with "R".

R Martin| 8.9.10 @ 8:48AM

If the GOP wants to consider constitutuioal amendments, I'd focus on this one: members of the supreme court and all federal courts should be elected and serve specific terms. The idea of a lifetime appointment to a job where one's behavior is not subject to control is absurd. At their core, these people are just lawyers. I suspect Ms. Kagan wil underscore my point.

George S| 8.9.10 @ 2:19PM

... and judges will be making decisions with an eye towards their future law firm careers, elected office or lobbying employment.

Also, elections are cyclical and have coat-tail effects. If SCOTUS candidates were on the ballot in 2008, chances are that a majority of Kagans would have been elected in the Obama craze, sending Scalia, Thomas and Roberts into the private sector. Elections are funny things...

ardvaark65| 8.9.10 @ 11:55PM

If RINO Graham wants a constitutional amendment, try term limits for senators to 2 terms only and make it retroactive on Graham. And, if we wish to get rid of the 12 million, just do what hitler did!

Jonathon| 8.13.10 @ 1:59PM

Really? Just do what Hitler did? And you still want the rest of us to believe that you all are the real patriots? the defenders of truth and justice? the true freedom loving Americans?

Every now and then you really show your true colors don't you?

Frank Drackman| 8.9.10 @ 9:08AM

My bonifides: Wore a "Nixon's the One" button to kindergarten in 1968, cast my first vote for the Gipper in 1980.
Got my Conservative Genes from my East German Mom, who might just have been the only East German/American who voted for George Wallace in 1968..
That being said...
I LIKE having how ever many illegals there are, they maintain my pool, clean my house, and laugh at my jokes.
I mean, back in the 60's my Grandfather had to pay resentful Blacks and White Trash Rednecks to do the same jobs..
Now if you'll excuse me, I've gotta tell Julio that one where Barak and Bin Laden walk into a Mosque...

Frank

SooSrrery| 8.9.10 @ 12:01PM

Frank...Those illegals that used to clean your pool. That used to keep you amused by laughing at your jokes....They are the ones laughing at you now. Don,t look but one has taken over the white house. They are on cnn (listen for the foreign accents, and their foreign last names) listen to their foreign ideas about doing away with the constitution, how it don't apply any more. The illegals have taken over, the jokes on you Frank.

Tom| 8.9.10 @ 12:46PM

Frank,
When did committing a crime, knowingly employing illegals, become conservative? Or supporting Wallace for that matter?

Lois| 8.9.10 @ 9:29AM

We don't have to deport those here illegally. If you noticed the trend in AZ during the run up to SB 1070, thousands of illegals self deported themselves out of the state. All we have to do is open the border and alllow them to leave with no questions asked then remove the incentives/protections they now enjoy. For example eliminate the anchor baby incentive, require proof of legal residence to get a drivers licence, to get a job, to get any public assistance (welfare, food stamps, WIC, etc.), to get medical care, to get any housing, to get a bank account, to enroll either themselves or their kids in school, etc.. This will eliminate the incentive to be here and they will leave on their own with no need for deportation.

Tom| 8.9.10 @ 12:28PM

Lois,
I think those are all good ideas. But do you not think that many will just go underground? It is not like a lot of illegals do not work for cash and are off the grid.

The one thing I disagree with is medical care. I think we should provide some basic medical care to limit the danger of diseases spreading from illegal alien populations to the population at large.

ardvaark65| 8.9.10 @ 11:58PM

Your idea of medical for all, shows' you to be exactly what you are hiding, a damn liberal scumbag.

Old Soldier| 8.9.10 @ 10:23AM

The only Amendment we need to fix our government is term limits for all members of Congress. Unfortunately, we needed to pass it before we put professional politicans in charge of the Amendment process.

daddio| 8.9.10 @ 11:07AM

We don't need a law for term limits. We have the power now. It's called the voting booth. Just don't vote for any incumbents. It's that simple!

UpChuck.Liberals| 8.12.10 @ 5:37PM

Yeah those term limits worked sooooo well in NYC with Bloomberg. Sadly there is no common sense test for voters.

figus janus| 8.9.10 @ 10:40AM

We have to ensure that, as Republicans we try not to make a third party. We need to somehow not split our votes on various different candidates who want to get into office. This is what always happens to the dems when they go to the ballots. Even though their party has run most states for decades. Which we can see they are running into the ground.

daddio| 8.9.10 @ 11:09AM

Since most current republicans are very similar to democrats, if there was a party of conservatives, we'd still only have two parties.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.9.10 @ 10:47AM

Old Texican VI here

Thanks for the reminder.
I think R Martin above got in the right general 10 ring.
Or... let's impeach umpteen zillion federal judges. Sort of a reverse "class-action suit".

Bill| 8.9.10 @ 10:58AM

I yearn for the day when Congress actually takes on the task of amending the 14th Amendment; it needs a LOT of amending, and I say get at it! At once. Without delay.

jack| 8.9.10 @ 11:18PM

Anne Coulter says that one judge reworded the 14th ammendment in a 1982 Supreme Court decision to allow illegals anchor babies. All it takes is another judge to reverse that language. You are buying the cool aide the left is pushing to stall any true action.

Dixie Pixie| 8.9.10 @ 11:14AM

This time next year the Conservative Movement will be in bewildered lamentations mode at the betrayal of the RINO Republican's like Lindsey Graham.

Did his vote to place the social butterfly and left-wing-nut Kagan on the Supreme Court prove anything to you.

BackToBasics| 8.9.10 @ 5:20PM

I will not be bewildered when the conservative's hopes are dashed yet again. And by-the-way, a lot of churches are led by pastors with the the same mindset in spiritual matters as Lindsay Graham is in political matters. I think they all go to the same club.

It just looks like we have to go through the gristmill and hope that there is enough good people left who can put the country back together again. But I think it will split in some fashion and this is what the top tier wants as far as I can see. If it's globalism they want and thus they want and a weak or split apart USA(s) to get to that end, do they not see China out there waiting with plans of their own? And their plans are not a muticultural globalist society. It would be one lead solely by Chinese. How do the western elites not see this?

Dixie Pixie| 8.9.10 @ 9:13PM

Blind ideological stupidly explains a lot – BackTo Basics.

Clinton nee Publius| 8.9.10 @ 11:41AM

We need to ignore amendments as the plebes and serfs might come to the conclusion that the best solution for our problems would be a revolt pursuant to a Constitutional Convention that end the ruling class' gig forever. Can't have that; we might see freedom and liberty and self-determination as the outcome and that would end the entire game altogether. How much fun would government be if you couldn't play God with people's lives and property?

S.L. Toddard| 8.9.10 @ 11:42AM

Lindsay Graham - that's what you get when you vote for the "lesser" of two evils:

EVIL.

Harry the Horrible| 8.9.10 @ 11:44AM

Well, darn. At last something we agree on!

Emma| 8.9.10 @ 12:07PM

Excellent. I see a bumper sticker:

The lesser of two evils is evil.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 8.9.10 @ 2:28PM

And you, I suppose, would rather vote the greater of two evils? With all your wit and wisdom would you kindly condescend to explain how that is a better choice?

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
Don’t Tread on Me.
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“Two boll weevils grew up in South Carolina. One went to Hollywood and became a famous actor. The other stayed behind in the cotton fields and never amounted to much. The second one, naturally, became known as the lesser of two weevils.” - From Pun of the Day (There is a version of this joke in the 2003 Peter Weir film “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World “ starring Russell Crowe.
Only 895 days to go.

John II| 8.9.10 @ 9:45PM

Thanks, Gill. I was going to steal the pun myself, but I'm glad I waited to read your post. Excellent sourcing!

Insight| 8.9.10 @ 11:43AM

The Constitution isn't the problem, it's the Socialists in government! Throw the bums out...

Anneke9| 8.9.10 @ 11:53AM

"... the joke is really on conservatives: a no-hope constitutional amendment is the usual way a GOP politician pays lip service to some conservative concern he plans to do nothing about."

Thank you for voicing what's been in my heart for years. The Republican establishment has been stringing me along for as long as I can remember. Promising x and doing y. Talking tough, then promoting RINO candidates. No mas. No more money, no more votes until I see that I--as a conservative--am not just being used as a means to the Party elites' self-serving ends.

George S| 8.9.10 @ 11:53AM

Graham was reelected despite his push for amnesty during the 2007 immigration debate. I think you are missing the whole point of Graham's call to clarify the 14th Amendment's ostensible anchor baby clause. It is a total misreading of the 14th to interpret that anyone can come over the border, give birth, and produce a citizen. Read the relevant first section of the Amendment:

Section. 1. 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[. ]

The amendment says "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" right after "all persons born". That means a vacationing couple from France, who give birth here in the States, do not produce an American citizen but a French citizen, if France so claims. That's because the French couple is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

What Graham is doing is purposefully omitting the jurisdiction part to give the impression that the 14th ALLOWS anchor babies as written, thereby giving liberal judges the cover they need. Also, if the people believe the Graham version of the Constitution, they are more likely to accept any form of immigration "reform" in a transparent effort to do something while giving Democrats their new voting base.

Dean| 8.9.10 @ 1:08PM

One might also interpret Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to be a one-time application in that it granted former slaves citizenship, and that it was not designed to grant citizenship to anchor babies in perpetuity. It might end up going back to the original intent of the drafters of the amendment.

Ike| 8.9.10 @ 1:36PM

So the solution to the "anchor baby" issue is to pass a federal law denying citizenship by birth except to the children of those who are lawful residents or already citizens. I'm not sure that the Republicans have the cojones for that one, either, as it has the potential to be political dynamite. However, if they were to win significantly in November and were to press something resembling the Tea Party's agenda and wage a PR war with the Democrats each time the President vetoes their legislation, the party could survive politically. The "Country Club" Republicans wouldn't survive it ... hmm ... that's not a down-side is it?

ananair| 8.15.10 @ 1:13PM

There is an appropriate cartoon in USA Today
It shows a bearded man with a staff leading a hooded ,bundled up woman on a donkey in front of a closed door with a sign reading
REPEAL THE 14TH AMENDMENT
The sign above the door reads
THE INN AT BETHLEHEM
and a voice from within
GO BACK HOME!!!!!
You can't come here just to have your ANCHOR baby
I wonder what reception the baby of this couple would receive in these modern United States of America, many of whose inhabitants claim to be "Christians" and "law abiding citizens" who also want to prohibit the building of an Islamic centre which is guaranteed under amendment I of the Constitution of the United States of America

Emma| 8.9.10 @ 12:05PM

I get so sick of their games.

1. I'm not "demanding mass deportation." (Straw man arguments are always a giveaway that your opponent doesn't have a good argument.) I want them to deport the ones they have their hands on today. And then tomorrow, deport the ones they have their hands on then.
2. Knock it off already with the everlasting "Contracts with America." Use our Constitution as is. Treat it and protect it as the mighty document it is. Enforce the laws we have.

Dimsey Lindsay needs to get lost. He's more dangerous than he is useless, and he's pretty useless.

Andrew Keirns| 8.9.10 @ 1:16PM

Thanks, Emma -- the ones we have our hands on today litter the jails of America. Does anyone know all the intricacies and details of deporting a convict? Maybe we could clean up that process -- several thousand deported by the busload/carload/airlineload -- however this is done.

Ike| 8.9.10 @ 1:41PM

The delays in deportation arise because some liberal judge decided that deportation triggered all the due process rights of a criminal prosecution. That's another piece of legislation for the incoming Republican majority - or so some hope it will be a majority - is to legislatively revoke some of these idiotic judicial decrees.

There are about three main categories of illegals eligible for deportation: (1) Fresh-caught under circumstances leaving no doubt of their status, i.e., captured crossing the border in the middle of a desert or swimming across the Rio Grande; (2) Fresh-caught, without American ID - i.e. some states will issue you a "ID" but not DL if you have a Mexican "Consular ID" - but not at the border, say at one of those checkpoints or during a routine stop, showing all reasonable indicia of being illegal; (3)

OT| 8.9.10 @ 12:09PM

Karl Rove is guest hosting for Rush today. Watch out for exploding heads on the left.

Blackwatch| 8.9.10 @ 2:54PM

I'm listening now. He is witty, intelligent, and does not cross talk over his callers.

The EIB network needs to get him his own show.

BackToBasics| 8.10.10 @ 12:50AM

Rove is overrated. He's no idealogue but rather a compromiser.. Heads explode, The liberals should THANK Rove for how he helped lead Bush way left of center on many issues including amnesty.

Most people seem to forget that one of the first things Bush worked on in 2001 was an amnesty-lite jobs bill which would have allowed permanent visa status and after the 3 year waiting period, american citzenship. 9-11 stopeed this plan. Well Rove was behind the scenes on this too.

UpChuck.Liberals| 8.12.10 @ 5:44PM

You want to see heads explode? Have Sarah do the show. The left will have strokes, aneurisms and heart attacks falling over themselves calling her stupid and how she had a hair out of place.

Bill| 8.9.10 @ 12:10PM

This 14th admendment thingy might work for me Say someone robs a bank, and gets $1,000,000. But seeing the cops outside.....Quickly tells the teller he wants to open an account.... in his childs name of course. Now he hasn't used a gun so the sentencing would only be, oh say ten years... time off for good behaviour...five years. Now at the end of five years he could proclaim the money was his for the child. How could anyone argue that? I mean after all who could take money from a child? Ohh I mean a innocent child, that through no fault of their own came to such a predictment? Isn't this America? If this helps just one child its worth it.....Cry ..cry....sob, sob....

ABNCP| 8.9.10 @ 12:13PM

This country has the power to seal our borders and deal with 12 million or 20 million or whatever number of illegals. So far WE as a people have not had the courage or desire to do so. It is past time for US the people to stand up and raise hell.
Any one who tries to tells us that we cannot close our borders, anyone who tells us we cannot get rid of whatever number of illegals hasn't got the brains God gave an earthworm and is operating with an agenda not in the best interest of this country. It isn't necessary to start a huge deportation program. Enforce an air tight "E" verify program. Lose the jobs, they will go. Of course, that would mean we have to elect a government that understands WE as a people will no longer stand by and watch the special interests control our countrys destiny. Can and will WE the people have the courage and interest to do that? The Tea Party has shown that many people across the country want serious changes in the way we elect our government. But, how long will that type of interest last. Let's not fool ourselves, the depth of change we need in this country will not happen in just one election cycle. Do WE the people have enough love for this great United States of America to do and continue to do what is going to be necessary. I guess we will see.

BackToBasics| 8.10.10 @ 1:41AM

Right on! Whence this wecannot do anything.... ANd everyone just sort of agrees and even conservatives throw up their hands and get defensive about it and sort of give in at least as far as the first 12 - 20 million go. If that happens its too late for sure.

ANother line thrown out recently is that 10% unemployment is the new norm. What a gag staement! And thelemmings just go along with it and the conservatives get defensive again.

See the article about how Democrats are running Tea Party infiltrators to split the Republican vote in November. You cannot play by the rules with such dirty people?

This may be a fantasy-land idea but it is an interesting thought; let the liberals have their own country, say 1/5 of the country. It would be such a weak one that we could take it back again in about 15 years. If we wanted it at that point.

David| 8.9.10 @ 1:25PM

Excellent Mr. Antle. I realized that during the repub presidential primary. A lot of conservative Christians said they could not support Fred Thompson because he would not support an anti-abortion amendment. I kept pointing out that what good is a promise if the person is not going to a darn thing to move along the amendment process. Zero, zip, nada.

Forget about 3rd party/independent candidates. The dems will almost always win 3-way races. Look at what happend to the huge lead Marco Rubio had over Charlie Crist. Vanished. Not that he can't win, but it serves as an example of what almost alway happens in a 3-way race.

We should insist that repubs start looking at and taking seriously their constitutional responsibility to impeach out of control federal judges.

Everyone needs to pray for the health and safety of the 4 conservatives and Kennedy on the Sup Court. We also need to pray that conservatives take over the Senate in Nov. One more Sotomayor, Kagan, or Ginsburg, and we are in real trouble for decades to come.

Jonathon| 8.13.10 @ 2:17PM

So, basically your solution is to pray? Good luck with that one...

Houston Rao| 8.9.10 @ 1:32PM

I beg to differ. The only constitutional change that is required is one which requires an unanimous upholding by all sitting judges, numbering no less than 9, on the constitutionality of any law proposed by government. That will stop ideological interpretations of the constitution by both the right and the left and force politicians to use the constitutional amendment process to seek more power to themselves.

The diversion to the 14th amendment is simply a ruse to get us to ignore the fact that the government has not done its constitutionally mandated job, that of securing the borders. Had they done their job, we would not have had all the illegals here and we would not be wasting time talking about amnesty or comprehensive immigration reform.

jstwndring| 8.9.10 @ 1:43PM

Yeah, the courts do NOT rule over Congress, it's the other way around. Yet, they make for an excellent scape-goat for Congressmen to blame when the voting public gets angry over one of their seemingly irreversible decisions. The very fact that Roe v. Wade means big business to the abortion industry means Congress will never excercise their authority over the courts. Sad, but true. We are now ruled by nine.

David| 8.9.10 @ 1:48PM

About not voting for 3rd-party/independent candidates, don't listen to me that conservatives/repubs will always lose, but listen to the dems themselves. Posted on Drudge is reporting that dems are putting up FAKE "Tea Party" candidates all across the country to siphon off votes for repubs. The repubs are making legal challenges.

The best way to ensure that those slimy creeps, along with ACORN and the SEIU don't steal these elections is to tell anyone is says they are a "Tea Party" candidate to run as a repub in the primary and general election and we will elect the most conservative candidate. Don't vote for so-called "Tea Party" candidate on the ballots. It is fine for the Tea Partiers to SUPPORT specific candidates, but DO NOT vote for anyone running under the "Tea Party" label. You will only ensure democratic victories in almost all races.

TaterSalad| 8.9.10 @ 3:11PM

Come November, it will be Marxists against Americans:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26362

Nate| 8.9.10 @ 4:10PM

Nice article, Mr. Antle.

Illegal immigration is obviously a problem that needs to be dealt with. I don't happen to believe that conservatives have the clearest picture of what they think should be done, but at least most of them seem to want to do something.

Those talking about changing the 14th amendment are, as we all know, and as THEY know, completely full of baloney.

There's not going to be a change to the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment is the basis of modern American society. To change it would be a catastrophe for this country.

But it IS impressive to see how cynical, how shallow, and how irresponsible Republican leadership can be -- even when it's in the minority.

colonialrevolutionary| 8.11.10 @ 9:26PM

You don't need to change the 14th amendment it already says that you are not a citizen unless you are born to parents who are "under the juristiction thereof". th 14th is so grossly misinterpreted and misunderstood. This is the problem in America today. Read wht the ratifiers of the 14th had to say!

TimH| 8.9.10 @ 4:32PM

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment reads:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Doesn't that mean that Congress can settle the "Anchor Baby" issue without having to go through the amendment process?

jrjr| 8.9.10 @ 5:08PM

Opening up the Constitution would be the greatest thing since FDR, Truman, LBJ and Kennedy. That is just what the leftist would like and RINOs like Lindsey ought to know better. But maybe they do. That would be a fantastic thing for Lindsey - get the 14th Amendment "Reform" known as the Lindsey Amendment. No war between the left and right has been won by the right. And there is no turning back, is there?

bluecollarbytes| 8.9.10 @ 7:29PM

I've always looked at the 14th amendment-'born here-is automatic citizenship' as a sign of the country's greatness. At that moment the lucky individual is granted full access to the liberties, and opportunities to succeed or fail that mark this nation. This move by some Republicans reminds me of the suggestion a few years ago by some Republicans that we should change the native-born citizenship requirement for the presidency- back when Arnold the Barbarian was a 'star' at the time, having won California's special election for Governor. Their willingness to change the constitution in exchange for fleeting political gain made a big impression on my impression of them. These Republicans are not yet ready for the 'big time' in our ideological fight.

jack| 8.9.10 @ 11:28PM

Since anchor babies were created in 1983 by one Supreme Court judge, I am assuming that you are not old enough to remember when they were not allowed.

FeralCat| 8.9.10 @ 8:04PM

A dirty old man in an overcoat passing out free candy to young children is more to be trusted than either Lindsey Grahamcrackers or Juan McJeckleandHyde.

Cow Rie| 8.9.10 @ 8:35PM

How about a Constitutional Amendment to Ban
Senator Goober Graham? He is more of a threat
than some illegal immigrants.....

GavInTucson| 8.9.10 @ 11:34PM

As a previous poster correctly pointed, you don't go tinkering with the Constitution on a whim. An amendment should only be sought if there's a fundamental flaw in the Constitution that needs to be rectified.

We don't need to deport anyone. Simply enforcing our laws and cutting off the entitlement gravy train (entitlements that citizens can't even get) will force these people to leave on their own.

On top of all this, you have to secure the border (as best as humanly possible) because it's a foregone conclusion that "others" are still trying to get in-- those that wish us harm.

Nate| 8.10.10 @ 1:31AM

I'm not sure where you get your information. Illegal immigrants actually pay a great deal of taxes and reap very few "entitlements" for what they pay.

I don't think you should consider Fox News a reliable source of information. They're just there to confirm your prejudices.

Andrew| 8.10.10 @ 4:07AM

OMG! I'm in Idaho (not quite a border state) and I work in retail. Our city has had to add police officers and create a gang task force to deal with the illegals and drugs in the last few years. this state is heavily agricultural and has always been lenient towards 'immigrant' workers, but this is a whole different world now. I see the fancy new cars they drive up in and the wads of hundred dollar bills, but they want to use their food stamp cards for their cheetos and soda. Give me a break! I'll gladly give money, pay taxes to help an out-of-work worker get back on his/her feet. This is abuse, plain and simple and i don't need Fox news to show me.

LindaB| 8.10.10 @ 12:19PM

That's great you guys keep parroting that liberal blurb. But, not one of you can prove they pay a great deal of taxes. That actually would be impossible considering all ususally make under the poverty level and don't pay federal income tax. Also, if in fact they file a form they EIC for children and making under the certified amount. So, next time get your facts straight!

Zbigniew Mazurak| 8.10.10 @ 1:29AM

W. James Antle argues that constitutional amendments to fix issues that conservatives worry about are unnecessary, and that many of them would merely re-state what the Constitution already says. He's flat wrong.

Constitutional amendments are necessary, because many liberal policies have been instituted - or are slated to be instituted - by judicial fiat. Only a constitutional amendment can stop the liberals.

W. James Antle III| 11.22.10 @ 3:19AM

As usual, Zbigniew Mazurak, you are unable to follow an argument that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

Constitutional amendments that will not pass will not do anything to reverse liberal policies instituted -- or "slated to be instituted" -- by judicial fiat. Many of the politicians pushing these amendments know that. They are simply trying to get the Zbigniew Mazuraks of the world, of which there are sadly too many, to vote for them.

We have heard people babble about the human life amendment for years. There is still Roe v. Wade. We are listening to babbling about the federal marriage amendment. A Roe v. Wade of same-sex marriage is a distinct possibility.

But I'm repeating myself here. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution as it is written on nearly any of these issues. What is wrong is the judges our politicians keep appointing and refusing to control, using the powers the Constitution already gives them.

Until the Zbigniew Mazuraks of the world can wrap their pea brains around these facts, we are going to see a lot more liberal policies instituted and slated to be instituted by judicial fiat.

LizardLips| 8.10.10 @ 5:37AM

America has become a hooker with a heart of gold, giving out to all with little to no return and the open borders crowd have millions lined up at her door for a free trick. It's killing this nation and I for one welcome the coming battle to save her from those who would steal her last breath.

READMES| 8.10.10 @ 7:36AM

I like the grand theft analogy Ill have to use it.

I want to know how these illegals intend to pay this fine when they make up the majority of the 'below-minimum wage crowd'. How much can they possibly be charged??? It sounds like a $500 max littering fine would be too much for these people let alone a 'ive been here for decades illegally and used your resources without paying taxes' fine. How much would that one hit them for, 50 bucks if we are lucky.
Oh and of course they would do community service, because in all my volunteer years I have not seen any illegals 'giving back' to their communities (and I dont mean their latin community I mean the town they live in).
And if you want to fix the language problem make english the national language, MANY CIVILIZED COUNTRIES HAVE THIS.

READMESII| 8.10.10 @ 7:39AM

A bunch of whites crowding around a 7-11 are deemed loitering and are told by the employees to leave.

A bunch of blacks are crowding the 7-11, this time the employees call the cops because they must be dealing drugs.

Now there is the pack of mexicans, they get to hang out all day long because they are simply looking for work.......

DOES THIS SEEM FAIR TO YOU

Vic| 8.10.10 @ 7:55AM

Let me see if I understand Mr. Graham.

We pass an amendment to a constitution which the central government has ignored for over 100 years. Yea, that'll fix it!

Changing the constitution will have no effect on a despotic, lawless government.

LindaB| 8.10.10 @ 10:05AM

I have said this since Grahamnesty even proposed it was grandstanding. We do NOT have to change anything we need to ENFORCE "Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof" It seems everybody avoids this phrase afte it says everyone is a US citizen.
During the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was NOT a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion. The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Therefor, if your parents are ILLEGAL you're ILLEGAL TOO!

HispanicJoe| 8.10.10 @ 10:21AM

My parents are illegal immigrants but that does not make me illegal. Only makes me a better American.

LindaB| 8.10.10 @ 10:36AM

Yes, it makes you illegal under the actually 14th amendment. You're not subject to our jurisdiction because your parents are NOT citizens. There are many people that are native americans and aren't good americans your argument is weak. Under the law all of you are illegal and our legal system needs to ENFORCE the laws!

HispanicJoe| 8.11.10 @ 1:34AM

Just because you wish it to be so does not make it so. In fact I am allowed to vote because I'm a citizen.

Not only am I a citizen but I am also a better American than you.

Barbara| 8.12.10 @ 6:00PM

You in no way can determine if you or LindaB is the better citizen. Actually your arrogance answers the question.
For certain your parents are not. The have repeatedly broken the law of the US. When you were born you should have the same citizenship as your parents. Just like every other child should have the same citizen has his parents.
The 14th amendment has purposefully been miss interpreted.
The democrats and the rinos do not have the backbone to enforce the law of the US because they are afraid of loosing votes.
What they sadly can not see is the one who would enforce the laws of the US would receive the most votes.

HispanicJoe| 8.13.10 @ 10:43AM

You can type til your fingers are bleeding, but that doesn't change the fact that I am a U.S. citizen regardless of my parents' status.

I also am of the opinion that I am a better American than someone who lies to my face about my own status. LOL!

Oldefarte| 8.10.10 @ 1:32PM

Graham is the very definition of.....RINO, and SC voters would be very wise to defeat him ASAP!!!!

Button Gwinette| 8.11.10 @ 12:45AM

How is a fake like Lindsey controlled? Answer: Polaroids.
Its all fake: Fake planes, fake victims, fake terrorists, and a fake news media: learn the REAL lessons of 9/11. How does an illegal African become US President? More Polaroids. Lots of them. Extortion, blackmail, and influence. The people "in charge" aren't. The conspiracy for a one-world government is monstrous. There will be civil war. And about the time every patriot and other "undesirable" has been eradicated, China and Russia will nuke us. Welcome to the 21st Century, America. Enjoy the mess.

Scott Haley| 8.11.10 @ 2:57PM

Mr. Antle: I agree with your overall thesis, but am puzzled by "...the reigning interpretation of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is bogus and could be fixed legislatively...". That sounds like Legislative Absolutism (L.A.), a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901. L.A., practiced by both Democrats and Republicans for decades, is how the Constitution gets ignored today; it's the primary reason that a plethora of unconstitutional laws currently exists.

Jon Roland| 8.12.10 @ 4:37PM

Unfortunately, lawyers and judges are trained to defer to precedent. It would be necessary to go outside of the legal profession to get judges that would decide constitutional cases strictly on text, history, and linguistic analysis. As a practical matter, once a precedent becomes entrenched, a constitutional amendment is about the only way to unravel it. The problem is that there is no one in Congress who is remotely qualified to draft any. Doing so is an advanced art. If you want some that might actually work, clink on the link provided.

Barbara| 8.12.10 @ 5:48PM

I will vote for the politician who will stop the amnesty. I want that fence on the boarder built. I want to stop supporting the illegal trespassers.
Stop feeding, clothing, housing, etc. the illegals and use that money to build the fence.
I want the babies born in the US to have the same citizenship as their parents.
This is what I will vote for.

davod| 8.12.10 @ 5:58PM

Maybe someone here can help me, and move the argument along at the same time.

The other day I read that the amendment never used to be read to include citizenship for the babies of illegals born here.

This changed when a SCOTUS included one line in a SCOTUS ruling that said they were covered.

I know we have a no win argument sdepriving babies of theirbirthright, However, if the justice did change the intent then at least the acerage supporter can make the imperial judiciary argument.

Unfortunately, I cannot recall where I read this. Nor can I remember the name of the Justice who wrote the ruling.

Does anyone recall this ruling and the justice involved.

Vasu Murti| 8.12.10 @ 6:51PM

Instead of packing the courts with conservatives, I think pro-lifers should be pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to extend human rights to the unborn. The central issues in the abortion debate are the “personhood” or moral status of the unborn, and the extent of individual and marital privacy.

Stephen Douglas has been quoted as having said in debate with Abraham Lincoln that human slavery be resolved through the democratic process. Let the people decide: if they “want slavery, they shall have it; if they prohibit slavery, it shall be prohibited.”

Whether or not democracy is the ideal form of government is not the issue here, but since we live in a democracy, what is wrong with Douglas’ statement? It was through the democratic process that we gave women the right to vote, gave 18 year olds the right to vote, and even attempted the Equal Rights Amendment. Isn’t this how we should extend human rights to the unborn? Isn’t this how we should give rights to animals?

Pro-lifers compare Roe v. Wade to the Dred Scott decision of 1857. In both cases, rights were denied to an entire class of humans based upon an arbitrary criterion, such as developmental status or the color of the skin. The conclusion author Paul Nowak draws from this in Guerilla Apologetics for Life Issues is that the Supreme Court is not infallible.

Roe v. Wade was decided in part by denying rights to the unborn, but also by assuming a right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut assumed a right to marital privacy regarding the use of contraception) not clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

Can we overturn Roe without overturning Griswold?

Is the solution to the abortion crisis to pack the Court with conservatives who might also oppose things like church-state separation (Nat Hentoff, an atheist, must know that in the Newdow case regarding the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, Justice Scalia had to excuse himself from the case, because he doesn’t believe in complete church-state separation) and deny us contraception and a right to privacy (Griswold)…or is the solution to enact a Constitutional Amendment to extend human rights to the unborn?

And again, as Paul Nowak says, the Supreme Court is not infallible. The views of the Court are constantly changing. In 1986, the Supreme Court upheld a sodomy law. A few years ago, they reversed themselves, which outraged the religious right, but pleased lesbians and gays, the parents and friends of lesbians and gays, and political liberals.

It’s my conviction that we do have a fundamental right to privacy, and I cannot advocate putting the women of America unwillingly under electronic surveillance, probing their past without their consent, denying them contraception, or even going through their personal effects (although the Fourth Amendment does protect us against unwarranted search and seizure). There must be a better way.

Until we pro-life Democrats have enough numbers to change our Party platform to one calling for a Human Life Amendment (as is the case with the Republican Party), I think we should be advocating: easy access to contraception; better, more comprehensive sex education; real social support for pregnant women and children; and reasonable restrictions on abortion (e.g., a ban on partial-birth abortion, parental notification or consent, 24 hour waiting periods, informed consent or “women’s right to know” laws, etc.)

Doing this would dramatically reduce the abortion rate, which would please both pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike within our Party. It would also be consistent with Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal and rare” position. If “safe, legal and rare” becomes the new mantra in the Democratic Party with regards to abortion, I will consider it real progress from the 1970s, when pro-choice bumper stickers read: “Abortion is every woman’s choice.”

Again, instead of packing the courts with conservatives in the hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade, I favor grassroots activism and educating the American public about when human life begins, prenatal development, etc. in order to get them to eventually support a Constitutional Amendment to extend human rights to the unborn.

Change happens slowly in a democracy; especially with regard to grassrots support for a Constitutional Amendment. This is equally true of causes on both the right and the Left.

United States Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once argued against capital punishment, saying, "The calculated killing of a human being involves, by its very nature, an absolute denial of the executed person's humanity." Justice Brennan claimed the 8th Amendment bans "cruel and unusual punishment." Yet the 5th Amendment refers to "capital or otherwise infamous crime" and says no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

This clearly implies that persons *can* be deprived of their right to life, but only under due process of law. Capital punishment, therefore, is Constitutional, and, ultimately, the only way death penalty opponents can correct this apparent injustice is through a Constitutional Amendment.

If pro-lifers *really* want to protect the unborn, opposition to abortion must come from across the political spectrum, and not just from the far right. I’m a liberal Democrat. My 2006 book, The Liberal Case Against Abortion, is aimed specifically at liberals and Democrats.

The liberal pro-life figures who immediately come to my mind are former Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff—a self-described “liberal Jewish atheist”; writer and former Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy; the late governor Robert Casey of Pennsylvania; and Wangari Maathai, the Kenyan 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner, human rights and women's rights activist, and environmentalist. Of course, I can’t forget Carol Crossed of Democrats For Life, either, who was kind enough to write the foreword to my own book on the subject.

"The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

---Hubert H. Humphrey

Forty-three percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion"destroys a human life and is manslaughter." (Zogby Poll, December 2004)

Sixty-seven percent of Democrats would outlaw some or all abortions. (Gallup Poll, May 5-7, 2003)

Seventy percent of high school senior females say they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant while in high school. (Hamilton College/Zogby Poll, January 2008)

Eighty-nine percent of Americans favor informed consent for women seeking abortions. (Gallup Poll, 2002)

Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe abortion should have stricter limitations. (CBS News Poll, January 2008)

Twenty-nine percent of Democratic Convention delegates disagreed with the statement, "Abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted." However, 52 percent of Democratic voters as a whole disagreed. This large discrepancy between party leadership and membership indicates a serious problem that Democrats For Life of America wants to rectify.

Fifty-nine percent of Democrats favor a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Gallup Poll, November 1, 2000)

During the 2008 campaign, Reverend Jim Wallis (of Sojourners) advised Barack Obama to support a plank in the Democratic Party Platform that would aim to reduce abortions by focusing on supporting low income women and making adoption easier. (This is the 95-10 Initiative, advanced by pro-life Democrats in Congress.) Reverend Tony Campolo served on the Platform Committee and has issued a strong statement in support of a pro-life position.

A "conscience clause" which appeared in the 2000 Democratic Platform (but not in 2004) acknowledges that there are pro-life people in our Party and we respect their views. It reads as follows:

"We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.

"However, we can find common ground. We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions by 95 percent in 10 years because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies. We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy: including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, childcare; and appropriate child support. We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term."

Democrats For Life of America, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004 202.220.3066

Dr. James Willingham| 8.12.10 @ 11:02PM

Evidently, we need a new party, even the old one called the American Constitutional Party. The Constitution began to vanish about 1871 with the adoption of the US Federal Corporation, followed by the United Commercial Code, the Federal Reserve System, the District Courts instead of Superior Courts (the latter are constitutional courts, the former are contract courts), the 16th amendment which failed by a number of votes but was added anyway, and then there is an interestin trial in Amarillo where in a district court ommy Lee Buckley is charged with fraud like he was back in '91 (the biggest bank fraud in American History and 3 mos. later was let go with all charges dropped), and does the cout expect to get some of the 160 Trillion dollars represented by the Federal Reserve certificates that Mr. Buckley is supposedly palming off on people (when a former member of a military intelligence outfit admitted there was something to it) and will Mr Buckey get wipped out as he fears like Christopher Story of Great Britain? O yes, one of the certificates was also held by a gentleman acting as an agent of the UBS Bank in Switzerland; it was for $60 billion in Platinum, and the Suspreme Court of New South Wales Australia set the man free, recognizing him as a legitimate agent of the the Bank in Switzerland. What news outfit will go to bat for the truth or are they all to continue as the gentleman said back early in the 20th century as paid prostitutes of their employers, the corporations representing the main stock holder?$160 Trillion would do a lot for our economy right now, and Mr. Buckley is said to have received the certificates legitimately but certain powerful political figures evidently want them unemcumbered. What will the God whom ever one is ignoring have decreed concerning this issue? We shall see.

Larry| 8.13.10 @ 1:05AM

This is an illustration of an old dilemma. It is an example of the virtues and vices of our Constitutional system. Fundamental changes like a Constitutional amendment should be difficult to make and should entail debate and wide consensus. Yet for years, conservatives and other "Republicans" (RINOs, mainly) have allowed the Left to set the tone and appoint enough judges on both the State and Federal levels that it is the judiciary that effectively defines what the Constitution currently is: amendments without actually following the process. And the truth is, it is just as hard to do what Jim Antle suggests doing because of how difficult it is to get controversial legislation of the nature (e.g. jurisdiction-stripping, which I do favor a lot) he describes in his article.

So the system is in gridlock. Serious gridlock. Sooner or later, there will be an explosion of some sort and something is going to have to give. We either take our Constitution back and restore our limited government, or else. And it will not be a good "or else."

anonymous| 3.26.11 @ 7:06AM

leticia olalia morales of 15501 pasadena ave #8 tustin ca 92780 submitted fake documents and paid 5000.00 dollars to obtain a US tourist visa. she is now applying for citizenship.