Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Pete Sessions co-sponsors bill to change 14th Amendment

Sure, they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, but they just want to "tweak" it a bit, and get rid of birthright citizenship--a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. For those of you who wondered whether or not Pete Sessions is a co-sponsor, yes, he is. For a look at their editing of the Constitution, check their revisions to the Amendment at the Library of Congress. A list of co-sponsors is available at this Gov Track link: H.R. 1868: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009

The bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.

Mitch McConnell is on record as wanting a "hearing" on the 14th Amendment, but not all conservatives agree, namely Lou Dobbs.

In the upcoming debates (unless Pete chickens out), listen for the latest right-wing fringe scare tactic: the "anchor baby" plot to take over America. :)

(And, if you submit a question, ask Pete if he'll considering "tweaking" the Second Amendment to exclude things like armor piercing bullets, since he's into changing the Constitution all of a sudden).


jim said...

you wouldn't need to tweak the 2nd amendement, just follow it. it says that we should have a well-regulated militia and the founding fathers didn't care too much for standing armies. they wanted to replace the imperialist idea of a military with a connection of local militias.

Sessions Watch said...

Good point, Jim. For reference, here's the Second Amendment, in its entirety:

"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."

It does seem to us that the intention of the Amendment ties the right of people to bear arms to the responsibility of defending the nation through the use of a "well regulated militia," though the courts have ruled in favor of an individual right to bear arms with no further responsibility.

Ironically, "strict constructionists" have not weighed in on the Second Amendment, and most conservatives would consider any ruling to "regulate" arms to be an example "judicial activism," even though such "activism" has clearly sided with gun owners.

Weaseldog said...

"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."

The founding fathers were colonials that had to address concerns that individual states had, over the issue of self rule and just how much power the Federal Government would have.

So I wonder, did they mean nation when they wrote the word 'state' or did they mean a State's right to defend itself against other States or the Federal Government?

jim said...

the word state in their day meant "state power" as existed in England. they were trying to create state power from a collection of colonies. that's how I read it anyway.

Nancy said...

Ok, I have a question. My husband and i like to hunt on our deer lease, so if a "strict constructionist" judge went back tot he original intent of the 2nd, would we have to serve in a militia to keep our "right to bear arms"? Not that it would happen, just asking!

jim said...

you wouldn't "have to", Nancy, 'cause rights by definition aren't tied to responsibility, theyr'e just rights of citizenship. but in the absence of a standing army people with guns would be asked toserve in a militia. but like you said it'll never happen.

Weaseldog said...

The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution are assumed to have the following rules regarding rights.

The people, implicitly have all rights not explicitly denied. These rights are understood to have been endowed by the Creator.

The government only has those rights, explicitly granted. If the Constitution doesn't say that the government has the right to do something, then it is illegal for the government to do it.

This is where the rights of corporations become sticky. If corporations are considered to be 'people' in the Constitutional sense, then they are granted all rights not explicitly denied, as their rights are endowed by the Creator.

Anonymous said...

Interesting commentary...by those who deem themselves "smart" and "educated". Hmmm.
What appears to be missed by the brainiacs is that part of the 14th amendment devoted to "citizenship by birthright" It's time that outdated portion of the 14th Amendment was deleted, since we no longer have slaves running around America. That was the original and only intent of the "birthright" clause...to grant citizenship to those slaves and their children whom were taken from Africa and brought to America.
Americans have long suffered from an overwrought case of guilt. Managing our wonderful Country properly would include the remova of such a suicidal clause from the Amendments to our Constitution.
I am amazed that so many self serving yount anarchists like those in this group attempt to hide thier hatred and anger for the very country that serves and protects them, in arcane pontifications. It's obvous these columns are written by arrogant teachers and students who remain teachers and students...clueless about the mechanics of running a democracy.
Please grow up, or, at the very least, devote a minimum of 15 years working within our democracy, outside of education, before boring us with more of your crap.

Weaseldog said...

Anonymous, thank you for the stream of insults.

Welcome to America.
Now Speak Cherokee.