From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
Some people just don't understand what the constitution is about. Especially what the "Bill of Rights" and the other ammendments are about. They are never about taking away the rights of citizens. They are about either expanding those rights which "shall not be infringed upon" by the government or limiting power of government. Ammendments of the constitution are not swords to be used against people with the force of the Federal government.

That is what bills, laws and statutes are about. If a lawmaker wants to propose a law making something illegal or banned, they can certainly do so. And if a majority of his or her fellow lawmakers agree, then it goes to the executive for their endorsement, which is done with the President's signature on the federal level.

That law then may be challenged in court as to it's "Constitutionality." If challenged, it is the courts area of jurisdiction to see if the law meets the requirements of our Constitution. One does not ammend the Constitution to take away rights of people. If you want to challenge someone's right to do something, make a law and see if it's Constitutional, not the other way around.

We did make that mistake once. When we outlawed booze with the 18th ammendment. Of course, lawmakers soon repealed that mistake with the 21st ammendment.

But some people are still not interested in actually working the system properly, They want the "fix" to be in far in advance. These are the people who want to make it "Constitutional" to criminalize behavior they disapprove of. Whether it be gay marriage, flag burning or abortion. Or even the latest hysterical panic cry from the radical right, citizenship.

Some want to take away a child's citizenship rights that are granted to every person who is born here. In otherwords, what our founders set up was a "system" if you will, or a belief that anyone who is born on the soil of liberty will always have a home here and can call this land his or her own.

I like that. That makes me proud to be an American. And the second we change that ideal and start excluding people because we think their motives may be questionable, we have trouble.

1st off, the people in question, the illegal immigrants who are coming here escaping a 3rd world hell and the preganant women who are amongst them are hardly the 1st people with that motive, Not only was many a boat that washed up on shore filled with women who wanted to stay pregnant till they got here so their child would be an American, so were the caravans and such that have rolled over from Canada since the post - revolutionary war days.

And it says something about our country that we are unique that mothers would risk life and limb just so their child could be an American. I don't ever recall anyone breaking their ass to get into the USSR or Iran or Britan or anywhere just to do that. ANd if a mother wants her child to be an American that bad, I am all for it. That is the stock that our next generations of patriots are born. Our nation is filled with patriots and heroes that were "sons and daughters of immigrants."

And where some may just be a victim to their own hates and bigotries, and resent them for being here and want to punish them with our constitution, that can't be questioned, by ammending it to somehow strip these children of their citizenship. We can't let that idea take hold and make our Constitution the victim of hatred and mob law that wants to close the door behind them and deny others what every child has enjoyed, regardless of their parent's country of origin.

Granting that automatic citizenship to the newly born on our soil makes our beacon of freedom shine a little brighter. Taking that away dims it a little further.

But don't mistake that as some "soft" stance on immigration. If the government actually did enforce the border better, actually went after employers who hired illegals and dried up the jobs we wouldn't have this problem and this wouldn't even be an issue.

If we dry up the job for that illegal, they won't stay. The family will go home. But that child will always have Lady Liberty as a refuge if the other nation is not accepting or acceptable.

Or if there is a reasonable guest worker program set up, and that family qualifies, they will stay. And I am confident that those immigrants will foster tomorrow's greatest Americans.

Either way, America wins.

But if we part from the ideal that our founders had in granting citizenship to any child who is born here, we are in serious trouble as a nation. At least the nation we were. We will go a long way in becoming just another country that does what it can to homogonize everything into a neat little package which most won't even notice until they are the target of exclusion. But by then it will be too late.

When we ammend the Constitution, it is to make us a more free people. Not less free. If we keep that in mind, I believe, we won't need to even discuss the ridiculous notion of somehow choosing which born children get to be citizens. A notion that is in my mind, completely Un-American and at least at the present time, Unconstitutional.


Comments (Page 1)
on Jun 27, 2007

You have the right idea, but the wrong approach.  No part of the U.S. Constitution grants anyone "Rights".  In fact, no part of the U.S. Constitution addresses the people at all.  The U.S. Constitution is FROM, We the People TO those working in the Federal Government.

Also, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it mandate the Supreme Court to review laws passed by the other two branches.  The fact is, those serving in the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch actually have NO authority to pass any laws that violate the Constitution.  The Supreme Court isn't supposed to play clean up.  The only time the Supreme Court is supposed to be involved is when cases are brought to it from the State Courts.

So, actually, no, the federal government has no authority to tell kids they can't read the Bible, Qu'ran or even Dianetics in school.  The federal government has no authority to tell me and you we can't own a gun.  The federal government has no authority to tell a pharmacist what kind of legal products he can or can't sell.  The federal government has no authority to tell a school what to teach.

Why?  Because We the People didn't grant them that authority in our letter to them... namely, The U.S. Constitution.

On the other hand, no matter what is in there, or what may be ammended in the future, it is (by definition) Constitutional... even if it isn't right.

 

on Jun 27, 2007

It is a good thing that after writing this

Especially what the "Bill of Rights" and the other ammendments are about. They are never about taking away the rights of citizens.

You then state:

When we outlawed booze with the 18th ammendment.

Which does contradict your first statement above.  Amendments to the constitution are not constrained by the intent of the Bill Of Rights (to control government).  INdeed, as we have seen, they can be used to restrict our rights (second statement above).

But the one thing a "law" cannot do that an amendment can do - is change the constitution.  IN the debate that MM started, the wording in the constitution is fairly clear.  You are born here, you are a citizen.  And no law can take that right away.  Only an amendment can do that.

There is one other thing an amendment can do that a "law" cannot.  It cannot be over turned by some monkeys in black robes.  It, not the courts, are the final say in the law of the land.

on Jun 27, 2007
You have the right idea, but the wrong approach. No part of the U.S. Constitution grants anyone "Rights". In fact, no part of the U.S. Constitution addresses the people at all. The U.S. Constitution is FROM, We the People TO those working in the Federal Government.


i understand that ted...perhaps i just phrased it oddly for you when i spoke of rights 'that shall not be infringed upon" by the government. also, when speaking on this, it gets a bit tedious to repetively have to say or type the phrase "rights in which the federal government must not infringe upon" and it is alot easier to use "granting rights" and such speech, if nothing more than convenience. but point taken.

Also, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it mandate the Supreme Court to review laws passed by the other two branches.


that's not what i said. i said if the law is challenged, the proper place to fight that out is the courts.

on Jun 27, 2007
guy...i am quite aware of the language i used and did it intentionally. it is never the purpose of ammendments to restrict a person's rights. and yes, we made that mistake once...and fortunately corrected that.

INdeed, as we have seen, they can be used to restrict our rights (second statement above).


well guy, yes, in the example of the mistake that i cited. where else have we done this as you imply?

There is one other thing an amendment can do that a "law" cannot. It cannot be over turned by some monkeys in black robes. It, not the courts, are the final say in the law of the land.


exactly what i said...fixing the game in advance. and abusing the Constitution to do it. for shame.

The constitution is not a weapon to use against your fellow man. as Ted said, it is from the people to the government on the rights that the government "shall not infringe upon" and certian ones mandating the government's conduct. it is not a sword to be used against others not in the government.

on Jun 27, 2007
where else have we done this as you imply?


I did not imply it was ever done at any other time. I stated it can be, and has been.

I am probably not as Anti Amendment as you since I can see occassions where it should be done. But very few, and used sparingly. I think prohibition, the ERA, and Poll taxes are examples of amendments that should not be (the ERA is not one). Laws are suffiencient in those cases, but we knee jerked to pass 2 of the 3.
on Jul 03, 2007
Sean,

I take it you use Internet Explorer, right? The reason I can tell is from the number of sophomoric misspellings you make, which certainly adds nothing to your already tenuous credibility. I would suggest you convert to Mozilla's Firefox browser, and then take advantage of the many add-ons they have available. One such add-on is a Spell Checker complete with an American English Dictionary. It functions in real time; that means whenever I misspell a word, which, like you, is often, there is an immediately applied red-line underscoring that leaves no mistake that that word is being misspelled, either intentionally, or not.

I'd also suggest you get a couple more years of Law School under your belt before you begin tutoring others in Constitutional Law.

And, by the way.....Is this by any chance a Right-Wing Blog Site? Somehow I sense an element of anger. Not just you....that Rico guy. Is he for real?

"Whatever," as us Liberals say.
on Jul 03, 2007
And, by the way.....Is this by any chance a Right-Wing Blog Site? Somehow I sense an element of anger. Not just you....that Rico guy. Is he for real?


This site is what it is. It's certainly fair to say that the majority of prominent bloggers on this site tend to lean to the right, but as everyone has equal access, it's not fair to call it a "Right-Wing Blog Site".

I'm interested in hearing more about your views than just a pithy comment on someone else's thread. Blog away!
on Jul 03, 2007

I take it you use Internet Explorer, right? The reason I can tell is from the number of sophomoric misspellings you make,

Actually you cant tell that since there are free add ons for IE to do a spell check. But even spell checkers cannot differentiate between too, to, and two.

on Jul 03, 2007
No offense, honest. It's just that if IE has a real time spell check, why don't more users use it? Personally, I am a great speller, spell check or not, but I also know that any person's credibility is NOT positively enhanced by constant misspellings. I also know the "to" differences.

Seems to me that if anyone were to take up blogging seriously they would want to present the best image possible, or am I missing something? Now, for instance, the word "blogging" I just typed became underlined in red as soon as I hit the space bar after the last "g", indicating that the word "blog" hasn't shown up yet in the version of dictionary used by my spell checker add-on. See? The word "blog" is also underlined for the same reason. It's real time and seriously helpful both for those who are good or not so good at spelling.

All said, the Mozilla suite is a vast improvement over Internet Explorer even with the latest revisions they've made to IE. Firefox and their email program, Thunderbird, are worth at least looking at even if you're addicted to IE. No, I don't get a commission from Mozilla...Just trying to be helpful!
on Jul 03, 2007
And, by the way.....Is this by any chance a Right-Wing Blog Site? Somehow I sense an element of anger. Not just you


ok right wingers...take note,,,the left is calling me a right winger, lol. barry, i think there are some on here that might disagree with that characterization.

it's not fair to call it a "Right-Wing Blog Site".


not if by that it is meant that the right is exclusively represented on this site. the site does lean, and lean hard that way. i've had that conversation with brad, and are in agreement there. i would say on political issues and related stuff, the features probably run about 80-20 leaning to the right, maybe 70 - 30. that's not scientific, just one man's opinion.

I'm interested in hearing more about your views than just a pithy comment on someone else's thread. Blog away!


i agree. although i do thank you for your comments. but i like to hear from all sides of the spectrum and believe many have something to contribute.

I'd also suggest you get a couple more years of Law School under your belt before you begin tutoring others in Constitutional Law.


this was hardly on any scholarly level. it was merely a response to moderateman's article where he wanted to strip certain people of their citizenship birthrights. MM and i have a mutual agreement to not comment on each other's sites. although i do stand by the views i expressed, i don't claim any particular expertise in constitutional law. i do study the document however, and comment as i see fit. i am a lifelong student of history and poli sci was my major way back when in college so the subject is hardly foreign to me. it's an interest of mine as an American simply put. and something i do occasionally like to write about. if you have a comment about the content, feel free to share, but i think it's a little pretentious to waltz in and tell people what they should and shouldn't write about.

on the spell check thing. most of what i write on here is casual and done in the little box provided. when i am writing a little more formally, it gets done on Word and transferred, like here...
WWW Link

and if ya come away with thinking i am some sort of right winger, either ask around or go here...WWW Link or here WWW Linkor just go here WWW Link

and it kind of gets summed up here WWW Link
on Jul 03, 2007
ok right wingers...take note,,,the left is calling me a right winger, lol. barry,


He must be left of Mao Tse Dung.
on Jul 03, 2007
i calls em as i see em
on Jul 03, 2007
more like this place leans so far right that someone who is mainstream and centrist like me comes off to ya'll as "liberal." meanwhile, like i try to tell ya'll, real liberals see me as conservative. and from where i sit, as long as i'm keeping both the extremes uncomfortable, i must be doin somethin correctly, lol.
on Jul 04, 2007

It is I, the Great Liberal Menace!

I dropped by to leave a link where you can find the Real Time Spell Check I mentioned the other night.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/beeler1.html

I think this will get you there.. It also has the Firefox & Thunderbird links, in case you're interested.

Okay, I take it you feel accused of being Right Wingers, right? Actually, it isn't a real condemnation since being Right Wing isn't really against the law, yet, but I find it interesting that many of you feel intimidated already. Paranoid?

Anyhow, I just stumbled onto this site by accident anyway, so I guess it would be just as appropriate for me to just stumble my way back out.

Have great Lives!
on Jul 04, 2007
Okay, I take it you feel accused of being Right Wingers, right? Actually, it isn't a real condemnation since being Right Wing isn't really against the law, yet, but I find it interesting that many of you feel intimidated already. Paranoid?


Not at all, Barry. I was sincere in my request for you to pitch in. Not a right winger here, nor a left winger (although you'd be able to pin me down on individual issues at various times on either side of that fence), but I love a good discussion. It seems you're more than capable.