Amend Amendment

Question: Is it time to amend the 14th Amendment, granting citizenship to all and sundry who are born here? Is it time to amend the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which gives citizenship to everyone born here? I mean, that was NOT the intent of the Amendment. And that right to citizenship is NOT absolute; children born within our borders of parents who are here on diplomatic missions are NOT automatically citizens when they are born here. If we can make an exception for that instance, we can certainly make an exception for those born here of illegal parents. It should be amended that citizenship is only granted automatically to those born here of citizens, or LEGAL residents. Screw the spawn of Illegals. They deserve nothing. Why reward them for their parents' crimes? >>>>>>>>> Mov ah, you are correct that the embassies and missions are not considered american soil. But how many diplomat's wives give birth INSIDE the embassy. Zilch. They go to the local American hospital. So, these children of diplomats are born on American soil, but are not still considered citizens. Therefore, why should children of illegals?

Answer: Yes this needs to change. But don't expect our corrupt politicians to change it. They are all pandering to the Hispanic vote. Wouldn't it be a hoot if the illegals were white guys from Russia who voted conservative or Republican? Obama and the liberals would be clamoring to throw them all out of the country no later than next week.

Question: Is it time to amend the 20th amendment to kill lame duck congress sessions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_A… Should section 2 be modified from this: Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. To this:? Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. The Congress session will end on the 1st day of November of an election year and Congress cannot assemble after an election until the new Congress is seated on the 3rd day of January. Shamus I agree with you.

Answer: As long as there is a caveat that allows Congress to reassemble in times of a National Emergency, such as they had to do in 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Only Congress can vote as to if we can go to war or not.

Question: Should we amend the Ist Amendment and add the word "separation of church and state" so Republicans can? understand what it means? Apparently they have an issue with the wording. They are defending O'Donnell on the grounds that the 1st Amendment does not say "separation". What part of "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" can't they figure out?

Answer: Conservatives apparently want to interpret the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, solely according to their liking on any given day. They act as if they never heard of the Supreme Court, except as convenient. The Supreme Court has been interpreting the Constitution for over 200 years. This country has a well-established body of constitutional law. If they want to reinterpret everything differently then they have a Herculean task ahead of them. Either they're ignorant or they're pretending to be ignorant. Either way it is disgraceful.

Question: what did the teller amendment amend? What did it amend? I don't really wan to know what it did since I know. I jsut wanna know the Amen part, thank you!

Answer: It placed a condition of the United States military in Cuba. According to the clause, the U.S. could not annex Cuba but only leave "control of the island to its people.

Question: Do you agree with experts that we need to amend the 14th amendment in order to prevent anchor babies? from getting citizenship? Do you know what's at stake here?

Answer: Those so called ancho babies have always made me very angry

Question: Lol the government needs to amend or eliminate the 14th amendment because? They can't do their job and secure our borders? I hope the people don't buy into this crap. Just more prove, and evidence that the government WILL come after Constitutional amendments and Liberties so that they can do their jobs - because they can't do their jobs with the powers granted because in DC it's the biggest ******* bureaucracy known to man. Mister Nineteen -- grow up. I support the Constitution. I simply disagree with the government targeting the 14th amendment because Republicans and Democrats FAILED miserably at protecting our borders. Stfu you naive prick. People like you are the problem in America.

Answer: This is what I thought when I heard about this. I'm NOT for amending the 14th amendment. I agree the government needs to and needed to protect the borders a LONG time ago. What we need to focus on is protecting the borders, lowering the numbers of illegals entering this country, stop employers in hiring undocumented immigrants. And get rid of the "trash" illegal immigrants that are is prison and on the streets. Then somehow do something that I think is reasonable, lawful, and humane for people who have done nothing but work in this country, again MY OPINION.

Question: will expunging eliminate (Lautenberg Amendment to the Violence Against Women Act) my 2nd amend rights? I was convicted of a misdeameanor domestic voilence charge and had my record expunged in California. After 10 years I can own a gun. Lautenberg Amendment to the Violence Against Women Act prevent me from owning a gun if in the United States? Please give me reference website supporting your answers,,,Thank you Will the lautenberg amendment prevent me from ever owning a gun?

Answer: There is no such thing as expunging a conviction in California; there is the phony-baloney quasi-dismissal under PC 1203.4 that unscrupulous lawyers advertise to be an expungement to make money for filing it, but it expressly does not have any effect on gun issues [nor on many other issues], and hence it is not a dismissal for purposes of the federal ban for domestic violence convictions.

Question: Would it be easier to bring a case to the U.S. Supreme Court or to amend/enact an amendment? Please. Be prompt with your answer. And be straightforward. Easy 10 points.

Answer: Thousands of cases have been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. constitution has been amended 17 times (counting the first 10 as one trip through the amendment process). So hmmm, I guess a S.Ct. case would be easier. Mayan.

Question: Do people want a less violent life enough to amend the Second Amendment to include only nonlethal weapons? Is living a longer, safer life important enough to you and your future generations to want to amend the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to only include the use of non-lethal weapons such as tasers, pepper spray guns, mace, etc? You are also invited to come to my blog called Marilyn's Non-Violent Planet htttp://www.non-violent.com for more detailed information on this subject and more.

Answer: it's a difficult question. first of all, in cities and with the recent outbreak of about ten school shootings in the us and canada, it would definitely be beneficial. then again, out in the country it may sometimes take the police too long to respond and residents feel they need firearms to protect themselves. either way, there is no completely clear solution.

Question: How would you amend the 2nd amendment? Give me your opinions.....

Answer: If making guns illegal will get them off the streets, then let's not stop there. Let's make drugs illegal too!

Question: Can Obama appoint judges to the Supreme Court who share his views to Amend the Constitiution re: 2nd Amendment? I personally think he wants to take legal guns away from citizens (no matter what he says).

Answer: He can appoint justices that have the same view on how to interrupt the 2nd Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution). But any appointments will need to be approved by the Senate. Currently, the Democrats have a small majority, but not enough to break a filibuster. There are still a few Senate seats that have not been decided yet, though, so this could change. Also, the most likely justices to retire are already liberal, so he would be replacing liberal justices with other liberal justices. For many of the justices, who will replace them is an issue when they decide to retire. Ginsburg stated a couple years ago she would like to retire, but did not want Bush to appoint her replacement. So, can he appoint justices to tip the balance to his side? Yes. Is it going to happen, maybe, but more to the doubtful side.

Question: Why do some Democrats want to amend the Constitution to limit the First Amendment? And what chance does this have of passing? http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release…

Answer: they hate free speech.it wont work in their progressive utopian viewpoint.

Question: Why does Huckaburger want to amend the constitution to make it "line up with the bible"? I mean, you cant even do that. You cant amend an amendment that doesnt allow what you are doing. Why do people even want him, he's going to do something terribly illegal.

Answer: Anyone who votes for this guy is out of their ever loving gourd...he doesn't even know what you can & can't do with the constitution, & hasn't the smarts to know it should NOT be messed with.

Question: can you amend an amendment in the constitution?

Answer: Any facet of the Constitution can be altered or changed by Amendment. An Amendment becomes part of the Constitution and can then only be altered or changed by another Amendment. 18th Amendment creating Prohibition 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition

Question: When do you think we will repeal or amend the 14th Amendment to end it's constant abuse? It served it's purpose in 1868 and made the children of freed African slaves U.S. citizens. Today, a 142 years later there ARE no more slaves or their children to be made citizens! Now it is only abused by illegal alien criminals who use it to exploit their illegally born children. As you can see from California, a state which is going totally bankrupt from the massive and unending onslaught of illegal aliens and their anchor children, this abuse of the 14th Amendment is destroying the United States as a whole. It is long past the time to repeal or amend the 14th Amendment and END this madness once and for all!

Answer: Not soon enough. The question, of course, involves anchor babies (AKA "jackpot babies"), infants born to illegal immigrants. iIllegal immigration has developed into one of those controversies that parcel themselves out piece by piece rather than all at once, a factor that gives the immigration controversy its never-ending-saga quality. Anchor babies are the latest installment. At first glance, it's not the kind of thing that anyone thinks of as a problem. How many could there be, after all? A few thousand? But this is overlooking the fact that anchor babies constitute one of the few true loopholes in American immigration law. The actual numbers beggar belief. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 340,000 of the 4.3 million infants born in the U.S. in 2008 were children of illegals. That number was matched if not exceeded in 2009. Something on the order of 8% of all children born in American hospitals can be classed as anchor babies. Of course, this percentage varies from region to region. In some Texas hospitals, up to 80% of the maternity patients are illegals. This isn't a problem -- it's a crisis. It's not surprising that it's arisen at this particular point of the debate. The real question is why it didn't come up years ago. o_O

Question: why is there a constitutional amendment on alcohol, but not on drugs? 18th amend prohibition (please help me)? Does anyone know... if we need a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, then why dont we need a constitutional amendment to ban drugs. and the supreme court case during nixons presidency that supports this.

Answer: When Prohibition was adopted in the 1920's, the federal government's power was considered more limited and that such matters were reserved to the states. It was considered at that time that a national ban on alcohol could only be accomplished by amending the Constitution. Through the many years since then, the Constitutional power of the federal government has been gradually ratcheted up by Congress and Supreme Court decisions. Most of this increased federal power came through a gradual broadening of the interpretation of the Commerce Clause of Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 3, of the United States Constitution. That's it in a nutshell. It would take a great deal of time to explain the specifics of the gradual increases of federal law enforcement.

Question: Should we amend the provision of the 14th Amendment? to only pertain to those born to legal US citizens? @Tony: Most countries require that your parents be legal citizens in order to grant you citizenship at birth. If a child is born to American parents in America that child is an American. The idea though is that if a child is born to Mexican parents in America that child is still a Mexican and the parents can’t stay in the country illegally.

Answer: If 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states agree with that as is required, then sure.

Question: Why didn't the 14th Amendment need changing during the Bush years, when immigration enforcement was more lax? I never heard any Republican or conservative--or anyone else, for that matter--say that the 14th Amendment should be changed so as to prohibit "anchor babies" during all eight years of the Bush administration. Did you? Yet during the Bush administration: --There was far less use of the "E-verify" program, which helps prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining jobs by claiming legal residence. --Fewer raids on employers who employ illegal aliens were conducted than are being conducted today. --There are fewer attempts to illegally cross the US border with Mexico than there were during the Bush administration. --Deportations of illegal took place in far lower numbers. (In 2009, the US deported 390,000 illegals, more than in any other year in our history.) --The United States sent fewer patrols to the border with Mexico than it does today. Why did the "amend the Amendment" movement NOT spring up during all that time, even though, if anything, illegal immigration was a more serious problem than it is now? Links establishing each of the facts claimed above: http://www.examiner.com/x-35532-Dallas-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d14-Immigration-enforcement-Obamas-silent-raid-audits-have-serious-deficiencies http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/05/obama_rushes_to_the_right_on_immigration_plays_chicken_with_immigrants_lives.html

Answer: I'd chalk that up with the Tea Baggers who suddenly oppose taxes that were higher during the Bush administration - suddenly they're against everything if Obama's for it. Taxes when Bush was President? Repubs were all for it! Lower taxes when Obama's President? Now they don't think taxes should exist at all! Immigration when Bush was President? He's compassionate to the Mexicans! Immigration when Obama's President? Maybe that 'equal protection' clause needs a little adjustment...

Question: can you amend an amendment?

Answer: 18th Amendment prohibiting the manufacture, sale & consumption of alchol. 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment.

Question: Should we amend the 2nd amendment to have less violence?

Answer: I'm a true-believer in not messing with the constitution... With that said, because the constitution gives us a right to bear arms, I do think we need more guidelines on exactly what that means. Like, I should not be able to go out and buy 20 tanks and put them in my yard as a form of home protection. LOL What I'm saying is that not allowing multi-weaponry is fine... like pistols, shotguns or single-shot rifles. We need more laws restricting machine gun type weaponry because I don't see a valid argument on those applying to protection of self.