RE: the changes to the 14th amendment, would that not mean that a foreign national legally visiting the US (and for example accused of a crime) would not be entitled to equal protection of the laws? i.e., not have Constitutional rights?

@Tickerguy
Fair point, but I would definitely move to strike "biological" in lieu of some language that handles adoptive scenarios. My daughter was literally birthed by my wife, but since she's IVF, her biological parents are not us. Something to consider in these times.

----------

Irregular Warfare is now in play

I like it, but add a clause in there repealing the 16th amendment. Doing that alone would solve an awful lot of problems.

Oy! Such an amendment would deprive the US of the immense talents of the likes of Janet Yellen, Jerold Nadler, Adam Schiff, Richard Blumenthal, Chuck Schumer and some others. However could we get along without their wise counsel regarding the interests of our country.

As others mentioned, I like this a whole lot better than Michael Moore's proposition. Then again I am also paranoid enough to think that if a Constitutional Convention were actually called, there would be a whole lot of shenanigans and we'd somehow end up in a much worse position than we are now.

Love the entire idea.

Granted, if that were to be proposed, the person so doing should just rename his house, office, business, investments, and family the "USS LIBERTY." (or if you think it through, JFK)

We are to a point where the idea of "What is an American?" is a question with a million answers, whereas in the mid-60s, it was fairly easy to answer.

The best I heard it said was, "There are no more Americans, just people living in America."

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-They wanted camps; I want ropes.

@Smooth - Correct. Summary expulsion from the nation, for example, would be permissible. Catch an illegal invader coming across the border and once you've verified they are not a citizen or a holder of lawful permanent residency, out they go. Period.

@Ugrev - Nope. And I say this even after pointing out over a decade ago in this column that under that rule (never mind the existing law) I may be ineligible to be President, because I'm adopted and do not know who either (say much less both) of my birth parents are and, indeed it may be literally impossible to discover who my actual father was. I never knew either one of them but it doesn't matter and neither does it matter who raised me or who was legally considered a "parent" -- the Constitution is clear on this point; I am a citizen of the United States as I was born here (and DO know my birth name and location, which was in the United States) but I CANNOT prove I was a natural born citizen.

Likewise there is no way that it is REASONABLE to allow someone to go to, say, Russia, adopt a child and then have that person satisfy the "natural born" requirement. Nope. Such a person should have to be NATURALIZED just like any other person who comes into the nation but was not born here of American parents.

If you give birth or sire a child as a lawful permanent resident or citizen then the lineage and citizenship of said child is clear -- but it is not under any other set of circumstances.

----------

There was a string of 5 or 6 consecutive Amendments that we could have done without.

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-They wanted camps; I want ropes.

The whole thing is brilliant, and we need to start talking about both of these!
I have just one concern.

Quote:

The 14th Amendment is modified to read:
All persons born of two citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States...
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person citizen or lawful resident within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

(Emphases mine)

That "born of" would have to be changed to "conceived by," in my opinion. Otherwise, the current abortion regime -- which is the deprivation of millions of people of their lives without due process of law -- would not only be allowed, but positively enshrined in the Constitution.

Absolutely NOT @Heartlander.

I know where you're going and why but that's not a debate to have in this sort of Amendment. The reason is simple: Where you and others with this opinion want to go is ill-conceived, stupid and will lead to prosecution of millions of women for the commission of felonies.

Why?

Because under that standard a child who is born with any sort of defect that is reasonably and arguably caused by the mother's lifestyle or pre-existing conditions whether she was at fault in causing them or not leads DIRECTLY to criminal and civil liability because unless the conception occurs as a result of rape it was a consensual act and thus if she was aware of any sort of compromise in her health at the time it was undertaken through negligence or worse.

This is why I have repeatedly said in the abortion debate that BOTH of the bookend positions are untenable. A woman who is overweight and becomes pregnant via voluntary intercourse, then as a consequence of obesity has a premature birth that leads to the child being disabled has committed a criminal act.

Now maybe that's exactly your intent, but the entire reason that ditching Roe and returning it to the States was the right thing to do is that this is a political question, it needs to be answered in the political arena, and short-circuiting that with Roe was stupid. Nobody can argue when life begins; it is clearly when the two gametes fuse, and that's true for EVERY sexually-reproducing organism and has been known since before this nation was founded.

BUT -- what IS under debate, and properly so -- is when and under what circumstances does that life acquire Constitutional protection.

You can't "partly" acquire that protection -- either a given life has it or doesn't, and that is a political question, not one of facts.

----------

The citizenship requirement is a good one, eliminating the dual citizens would cleanse the government the Alexander Vindman types as well as a rather large number of people who are agents of the nation of Israel.

However I think the "wait" period should be 20-30 years instead of 7, and it should also apply to our military. The military capture by foreign agents is something to be concerned with.

@Packetcap - I explained why 7 years; a minor cannot legally renounce and you must be 25 to be seated in the US House. 18 + 7 = 25.

It is also long enough that, for those intending to game it, they must have relinquished any right to change their mind almost two full presidential terms prior.

----------

I'll add to the wish list:

Balanced budget requirement except in times of declared war.

One item per bill, no more of this 7,000 page hodgepodge legislation that covers everything including your kitchen sink.

Does the proposed 28th cover official lobbyists too?

@Sonoran_monk - I suspect neither of those is required.

Here's why: The Senate is returned to being un-bribable in realistic terms. Right now its 100 people you have to bribe one way or another (e.g. campaign contributions/attack ads, etc.) In reality its a handful of people, since those are the swing votes on basically any issue irrespective of the make-up of the Senate.

With this change you multiply that by the size of the State Legislatures in each of the states, because the Legislature can recall their Senators. This makes that sort of bullshit game unproductive.

The lobbyists will still be all over the House, and that's fine, but you need BOTH Houses of Congress to pass anything -- not just the House.

This Amendment won't eliminate lobbying, nor should you eliminate lobbying. The House and Senate are supposed to have different constituencies; that was the intent of the Founders and the magic in our government's design. The House represents the people while The Senate represents the State Legislatures.

----------

I wasn't thinking along the lines of eliminating lobbying, but more to the model legislation nonsense pre-written by the lobbyists. But, I suppose the recall risk might negate that practice.

It won't stop it in The House but it doesn't have to. The tension between the two legislative houses is both intentional in the design of the government and beneficial.

----------

Awesome changes to the founding documents. I would support this in a heartbeat.

----------

"The higher I go, the crookeder it gets." --Michael Corleone

@Tickerguy

Quote:

If you give birth or sire a child as a lawful permanent resident or citizen then the lineage and citizenship of said child is clear -- but it is not under any other set of circumstances.

That's my whole point. I think we're saying the same thing from different angles, but in retrospect, the "at birth" part is distinct enough to acquire what you said is undeniable lineage.

----------

Irregular Warfare is now in play

like it

This is why nothing will get done in the US or kanukistan.....
And our gubment knows this.

----------

God is great!
Beer is good!
And people are stupid!

All good ideas, but I'd just as well replace all of it with one sentence:

If the Constitution says X, YOU DO X.

This alone would fix most of the problems.

"No person shall run for, be nominated for, or serve as a US Representative, Senator, President, Vice-President, Cabinet Member or be employed in a position of direct policy-making authority within any federal agency or instrumentality if they hold or have held citizenship or the right of lawful permanent residency in any nation other than that of the United States during the previous seven years."

Whoa, Ticker Dude, what's with all the anti-semitism!?!


Term limits don't encourage better behavior, they encourage "grab as much as you can as fast as you can in the time available". I mean, remember to whom we're applying this stuff.


I'm tempted to call for the Athenian model of "citizenship", but that's probably going too far for modren America.

Most countries adopt the legal doctrine of jus sanguinus (law of blood) when it comes to citizenship. The United States for some reason adopts the doctrine of jus solis (law of soil). Some legal scholars would suggest that jus solis is inferred in the 14th amendment. Making the change via the 28th amendment would be an excellent idea.

Meanwhile, the only way to get this ratified is with a Constitutional Convention...Do you really want to open pandora's box?

----------

Look, I would *LOVE* to be wrong, and perhaps I'm just too cynical because, well fucking look around. -Spanktron9

The anons have gone full autistic...
Those are the people I would never

That's not true.

I suspect the requisite majority of the States would ratify it. The arm-twisting necessary to get the Federal side to pass it could be interesting, however.

----------