Thread: Lawmakers in 14 States Craft Bill to Deny Citizenship to 'Anchor Babies'

Best news I've heard in years.

Fox News;

PHOENIX -- Lawmakers in at least 14 states announced Tuesday they are working on legislation to deny U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, although they weren't specific about how they plan to do it.

Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce said he and the lawmakers have a working draft of their model legislation and have consulted constitutional scholars to change the 14th Amendment and deny automatic citizenship.

I wonder how that will turn out?

Don't see it happening unfortunately.

This is how it should be done.

Article V of the United States Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Before folks start panicking about changing the Constitution, two thirds of the states will have to ratify any changes or amendments. An article 5 is the best way to go as the States demand a call for the convention and if congress is derilic in their duty by ignoring the States then the States can go ahead and hold the convention without the congress' input and participation. While congress has no real control over the direction and proposals the the convention.

A 1996 article, The Cato Institute explains:http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5441

While a convention's agenda cannot be limited--the critics are absolutely right on this--a convention has no authority whatever to amend the Constitution. A convention can only "propose." And a proposal is just that. No proposal becomes constitutional law until it is ratified. And that is another matter entirely.
Thus, there is all the difference in the world between a free-standing "Constitutional Convention"--authorized to write even its own rules of ratification--and a convention for proposing amendments to an existing constitution that already prescribes how any such amendments are to be ratified. In no way does Article V authorize the former. Any proposals to amend the existing Constitution that proceed by either of the methods prescribed in Article V must be ratified by the procedures prescribed there as well--however far reaching those proposals may be. Indeed, even a proposal to change the ratification procedure itself must be ratified by the existing ratification procedure.

Turning to ratification, then, if proposing amendments is difficult, ratifying them is extraordinarily difficult. Indeed, it is no accident that in more than 200 years, only 27 amendments have been ratified (10 at the outset, one of the remaining 17 repealing another), for ratification must be by the concurrence of "the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof." Given the unlikelihood of the latter method, the numbers alone tell the story. With Nebraska as the only state with a unicameral legislature, it takes majorities in 75 of the 99 state legislative bodies in America to ratify any change in the Constitution. Looked at from the other direction, it takes only 13 such bodies to block any change. Those who fear a "runaway" convention have simply not done their ratification arithmetic.

Are we really to believe that a runaway convention could get its schemes past the public? Are there not 13 bodies in this land that would rise to block all but the most popular of proposals?

If you cannot tell by now I am in favor of an Article 5 Convention taking place. I feel this would be the last peaceful means to a resolution of restoring the country back to a Constitutional Republic.

Jesus! A ConCon would be the worst thing EVER! Last time they had a ConCon to look at only one issue they ended up changing everything. Now, that was a good thing that time. I don't think it would happen again that way. We'd end up with Constitution that would make Rwanda's look as good as our current one.

Think about it, 35 States have to ratify any amendments that would be proposed. Take a good look at the election maps for the last several elections. Very few states are blue, the libtards that gave us obama are in very concentrated, densely populated cities. Most of the rest of the country is red and conservative. Again, 35 States have to ratify the amendments.

I really believe this would be our last hope to bring the republic back without bloodshed. If you think the election in November will fix anything you are sorely mistaken. Washington has no interest in willingly giving up the power they have stolen from "we the people".

Read thru the Cato link I posted above.

I'll have my fingers crossed...

I read Cato and love their work, I don't trust ANYONE that would currently be lined up to go to a ConCon to do what is right for the country, not themselves. None of them. The current system ensures you are corrupted by the process just to make it into a position you can run in the first place. There is no quick or easy way to fix the current system. The current Constitution is all but dead, it certainly is disdained by all three branches of our government, and there is no way for an honest, hard working person to advance a logical platform. Washington was right, political parties would be a part of our downfall, now there is no way around them. Too many Repubs BELIEVE that a vote to anyone not a Repub is a wasted vote. Is this a pessimistic viewpoint? I believe it is a realistic viewpoint.

As sad as it is, I agree with you. What is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. I am tired of wasting my vote on the same old big gubberment repubicans. That is why I didn't vote for Chambliss in '08 and I won't be voting for Johnny this year. The thing about an Article 5 concon is the States select the delegates for the convention to propose the amendments and then the States will then vote to ratify such amendments.

There has been a lot of negative propaganda to scare the citizens from going forth with a concon because the ruling class in DC knows that if we the people go ahead with it we will be taking their power away from them and putting it back into our hands as the founder envisioned it.

Besides, whats the worst that could happen? We'll just get to where we are going anyways, one or two decades faster. All that means is the party got started while I am still young enough to play.

So who in Ney York would you trust? Connecticut? Rhode Island? Delaware? California? Heck, Georgia for that matter? The cities drive the politics in States anymore, at least in most states. "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."