Jump to content

Huckabee against changing 14th Amendment


WestVirginiaRebel

Recommended Posts

WestVirginiaRebel
?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_politicalticker+%28Blog%3A+Political+Tick
CNN:

(CNN) – Mike Huckabee says he's against changing portions of the Constitution that automatically grant citizenship to children of immigrants born in the United States - a position that puts the potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate at odds some of his party's most prominent figures.

In an interview that aired on NPR Wednesday, the former Arkansas governor and 2008 White House hopeful said the section of the 14th Amendment currently in question has long been held valid.

"The Supreme Court has decided that, I think, in three different centuries, said Huckabeee. "In every single instance, they have affirmed that if you are born in this country, you are considered to be a citizen. The only option there is to change the constitution."

Asked specifically if he would favor such an effort to change the constitution, Huckabee said flatly, "No."

"Let me tell you what I would favor. I would favor having controlled borders," he said. "But that's where the federal government has miserably and hopelessly failed us."

Huckabee's comments came the same day a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll showed Americans are split right down the middle when it comes to the question of whether automatic citizenship should be granted to children of illegal immigrants born within the United States' borders

According to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll out Wednesday, 49 percent of Americans are in favor of changing that portion of 14th Amendment while 51 percent oppose doing so.
The poll also shows a clear partisan divide on the issue, with 58 percent of Republicans supporting a change while only 39 percent of Democrats do so. Independents are split exactly 50-50.

Several leading GOP senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and 2008 presidential nominee John McCain, have said they would support holding hearings into the matter as part of the heated debate over immigration.
________

He's right. Besides, people who call themselves conservative shouldn't be arguing against activist judges on the one hand and then calling for changes to the Constitution on the other. Another view can be seen here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Supreme Court has decided that, I think, in three different centuries, said Huckabeee. "In every single instance, they have affirmed that if you are born in this country, you are considered to be a citizen. The only option there is to change the constitution."

 

Asked specifically if he would favor such an effort to change the constitution, Huckabee said flatly, "No."

 

I truly hate when politicians make remarks regarding the Constitution without having actually studied the document or its history.

 

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 (that's only 142 years, not three centuries.) Further, of the seven cases that have come to SCOTUS regarding the Section 1, Part 1 of the 14th Amendment (The "Naturalization Clause") six were found in favor of the appellant, but one case, Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), the court found against the appellant.

 

One last point. Like most judicial decisions these days, the 14th Amendment has been too broadly interpreted. There are more requirements than merely being born on American soil. On its face, the 14th Amendment is fairly benign. But, like many other parts of the Constitution, it has been overly simplified by activist judges and politicians to perform social engineering to our society.

 

Edited to complete a sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Supreme Court has decided that, I think, in three different centuries, said Huckabeee. "In every single instance, they have affirmed that if you are born in this country, you are considered to be a citizen. The only option there is to change the constitution."

 

Asked specifically if he would favor such an effort to change the constitution, Huckabee said flatly, "No."

 

I truly hate when politicians make remarks regarding the Constitution without having actually studied the document or its history.

 

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 (that's only 142 years, not three centuries.) Further, of the seven cases that have come to SCOTUS regarding the Section 1, Part 1 of the 14th Amendment (The "Naturalization Clause") six were found in favor of the appellant, but one case, Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980).

 

One last point. Like most judicial decisions these days, the 14th Amendment has been too broadly interpreted. There are more requirements than merely being born on American soil. On its face, the 14th Amendment is fairly benign. But, like many other parts of the Constitution, it has been overly simplified by activist judges and politicians to perform social engineering to our society.

 

 

Thank you.

 

What can I say except if the Huckster is against something this is a very good reason to be for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to even envision the Huckster as a Prez candidate for the 2012 election. The man is a snake oil salesman.

 

I've read on other forums that clarification of the anchor baby interpretation that has been linked to the 14th amendment does NOT require a change of the Constitution. It can be done by the Congress through the legislative process to specify exactly what the the original intent was (to give citizenship to slaves born in the US) and specify what is required for citizenship by birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to even envision the Huckster as a Prez candidate for the 2012 election. The man is a snake oil salesman.

 

 

 

YUP!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with Gov. Huckabee on a number of things but I support the 14th Amendment. Enforcement is one part of the solution, changing entitlement payments to non citizens is the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...was the 14th Amendment not written to protect the children of slaves from being deported/sold on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...was the 14th Amendment not written to protect the children of slaves from being deported/sold on?

 

Actually, it was passed to make all former slaves citizens. Up to that point, they weren't considered citizens, even thought they were legally freed under the 13th Amendment. The idea, at the time, was that they would all vote Republican!!

 

Didn't work out that way for very long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...was the 14th Amendment not written to protect the children of slaves from being deported/sold on?

 

Actually, it was passed to make all former slaves citizens. Up to that point, they weren't considered citizens, even thought they were legally freed under the 13th Amendment. The idea, at the time, was that they would all vote Republican!!

 

Didn't work out that way for very long.

 

Under the original wording of the amendment, American Indians did not qualify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...was the 14th Amendment not written to protect the children of slaves from being deported/sold on?

 

Actually, it was passed to make all former slaves citizens. Up to that point, they weren't considered citizens, even thought they were legally freed under the 13th Amendment. The idea, at the time, was that they would all vote Republican!!

 

Didn't work out that way for very long.

 

Under the original wording of the amendment, American Indians did not qualify.

 

Ah, but that was because they were required by tribal law to swear allegiance to the tribal government, which exempted them from the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause. However, Native Americans were covered by the Citizenships Act of 1924, which gave them naturalization status under the 14th Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to even envision the Huckster as a Prez candidate for the 2012 election. The man is a snake oil salesman.

 

Exactly. There's a sleaziness about him that reminds me of King Bubba or Lindsay Grahamnesty, and the way he teamed up with McCain to knock off Romney in the '08 GOP primaries left a very bad taste in my mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...was the 14th Amendment not written to protect the children of slaves from being deported/sold on?

 

Actually, it was passed to make all former slaves citizens.

Slaves were brought here, often against their will. They had children here, and the 14th Amendment was meant to protect them by granting citizenship.

NOT the same as someone PURPOSEFULLY coming across the border to birth their offspring!

So, the 14th Amendment shouldn't apply to those children, and should be repealed ASAP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...was the 14th Amendment not written to protect the children of slaves from being deported/sold on?

 

Actually, it was passed to make all former slaves citizens.

Slaves were brought here, often against their will. They had children here, and the 14th Amendment was meant to protect them by granting citizenship.

NOT the same as someone PURPOSEFULLY coming across the border to birth their offspring!

So, the 14th Amendment shouldn't apply to those children, and should be repealed ASAP.

 

One has to keep in mind AnneV, that by the time of the Civil War virtually all negro slaves had been born here, so it allowed almost all of them to attain citizenship. The 14th Amendment was also a boon to many Europeans that were recruited to fight for the North during the war, even though their non-citizenship status removed them from the obligation to do so.

 

But, you are right. The Supreme Court, in what I believe was the first 14th Amendment citizenship case to come before them, ruled that the non-citizen parents of the child born on U.S. soil must (1) have permanent domicile within the U.S. and (2) went about regular business during residency. I don't think hanging out at the Welfare Office regular business, and few illegals, from Mexico at least, take up permanent domicile....they tend to move around a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...was the 14th Amendment not written to protect the children of slaves from being deported/sold on?

 

Actually, it was passed to make all former slaves citizens.

Slaves were brought here, often against their will. They had children here, and the 14th Amendment was meant to protect them by granting citizenship.

NOT the same as someone PURPOSEFULLY coming across the border to birth their offspring!

So, the 14th Amendment shouldn't apply to those children, and should be repealed ASAP.

 

One has to keep in mind AnneV, that by the time of the Civil War virtually all negro slaves had been born here, so it allowed almost all of them to attain citizenship. The 14th Amendment was also a boon to many Europeans that were recruited to fight for the North during the war, even though their non-citizenship status removed them from the obligation to do so.

 

But, you are right. The Supreme Court, in what I believe was the first 14th Amendment citizenship case to come before them, ruled that the non-citizen parents of the child born on U.S. soil must (1) have permanent domicile within the U.S. and (2) went about regular business during residency. I don't think that hanging out at the Welfare Office constitutes regular business, and few illegals, from Mexico at least, take up permanent domicile....they tend to move around a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1708991098
×
×
  • Create New...